Re: superuser() shortcuts - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: superuser() shortcuts
Date
Msg-id 20141126133309.GV28859@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: superuser() shortcuts  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: superuser() shortcuts  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> I'm not really particular about which way we go with the specific
> >> wording (suggestions welcome..) but the inconsistency should be dealt
> >> with.
> >
> > Meh.
>
> +1 for "meh".  I don't mind making things consistent if it can be done
> while maintaining or improving the absolute quality of those error
> messages -- but if the changes involve a loss of detail, or moving
> information that used to be in the main error message into the detail,
> then I don't think it's worth it.

Doesn't that argument then apply to the other messages which I pointed
out in my follow-up to Andres, where the detailed info is in the hint
and the main error message is essentially 'permission denied'?  Also, if
we're going to make these error-messages related to role attributes be
'you need role attribute X', should we consider doing the same for the
regular 'permission denied' error messages?

I can understand the arguments about loss of detail or having the detail
in the hint instead of the error message.  I don't understand why we'd
want the messaging to be inconsistent.
Thanks,    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Palle Girgensohn
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-packagers] Palle Girgensohn's ICU patch
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Follow up to irc on CREATE INDEX vs. maintenance_work_mem on 9.3