Re: Letter case of "admin option"

On 2022-Aug-25, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:

> At Tue, 23 Aug 2022 09:58:47 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in

> I would translate "ADMIN OPTION" to "ADMIN OPTION" in Japanese but
> "admin option" is translated to "管理者オプション" which is a bit hard
> for the readers to come up with the connection to "ADMIN OPTION" (or
> ADMIN <roles>). I guess this is somewhat simliar to use "You need to
> give capability to administrate the role" to suggest users to add WITH
> ADMIN OPTION to the role.
>
> Maybe Álvaro has a similar difficulty on it.

Exactly.

I ran a quick poll in a Spanish community. Everyone who responded (not
many admittedly) agreed with this idea -- they find the message clearer
if the keyword is mentioned explicitly in the translation.

> > In short, I'm wondering whether we should regard ADMIN as the name of
> > the option, but OPTION as part of the GRANT syntax, and hence
> > capitalize it "ADMIN option". However, if the non-English speakers on
> > this list have a strong preference for something else I'm certainly
> > not going to fight about it.
>
> "ADMIN option" which is translated into "ADMINオプション" is fine by
> me. I hope Álvaro thinks the same way.

Hmm, but our docs say that the option is called ADMIN OPTION, don't
they? And I think the standard sees it the same way. You cannot invoke
it without the word OPTION. I understand the point of view, but I don't
think it is clearer done that way. It is different for example with
INHERIT; we could say "the INHERIT option" making the word "option"
translatable in that phrase. But then you don't have to add that word
in the command.

> What do you think about the attached?

I prefer the <literal>ADMIN OPTION</literal> interpretation (both for
docs and error messages). I think it's clearer that way, given that the
syntax is what it is.

> > > > !is_admin_of_role(currentUserId, roleid))
> > > > ereport(ERROR,
> > > > (errcode(ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_PRIVILEGE),
> > > > errmsg("must have admin option on role \"%s\"",
> > > > rolename)));
> > >
> > > The message seems a bit short that it only mentions admin option while
> > > omitting CREATEROLE privilege. "must have CREATEROLE privilege or
> > > admin option on role %s" might be better. Or we could say just
> > > "insufficient privilege" or "permission denied" in the main error
> > > message then provide "CREATEROLE privilege or admin option on role %s
> > > is required" in DETAILS or HINTS message.

I'm not opposed to moving that part of detail/hint, but I would prefer
that it says "the CREATEROLE privilege or ADMIN OPTION".

> --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_group.sgml
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_group.sgml
> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ ALTER GROUP <replaceable class="parameter">group_name</replaceable> RENAME TO <r
> <link linkend="sql-revoke"><command>REVOKE</command></link>. Note that
> <command>GRANT</command> and <command>REVOKE</command> have additional
> options which are not available with this command, such as the ability
> - to grant and revoke <literal>ADMIN OPTION</literal>, and the ability to
> + to grant and revoke <literal>ADMIN</literal> option, and the ability to
> specify the grantor.
> </para>

I think the original reads better.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La libertad es como el dinero; el que no la sabe emplear la pierde" (Alvarez)