Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ago 24 09:36:05 -0400 2010:
> "McGehee, Robert" <Robert(dot)McGehee(at)geodecapital(dot)com> writes:
> > Thanks Tom and Alvaro for clearing up my confusion.
> > \l showed that a485099 had both (C)reate and (T)emporary access.
> > Revoking those allowed me to drop the role. Thanks for the help!
> I wonder whether Robert's confusion doesn't stem from a poor choice
> of message wording:
> >> template1=# DROP ROLE a485099;
> >> ERROR: role "a485099" cannot be dropped because some objects depend on it
> >> DETAIL: access to database template1
> I can see how "access to" might be read as specifically meaning "CONNECT
> privilege for". Should we change this message from "access to whatever"
> to "privileges for whatever", or some such wording?
Code is here:
else if (deptype == SHARED_DEPENDENCY_ACL)
appendStringInfo(descs, _("access to %s"), objdesc);
Happy to change it to whatever is deemed appropriate. "privileges for %s"
sounds good; I'll do that unless somebody comes up with a better idea
which outvotes this one.
Backpatch all the way to 8.1? Code doesn't exist prior to that.
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2010-08-24 17:03:45|
|Subject: Re: EXPLAIN doesn't show the actual function expression
|Previous:||From: Eric Simon||Date: 2010-08-24 16:43:59|
|Subject: Re: Problem Using PQcancel in a Synchronous Query |
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2010-08-24 17:04:07|
|Subject: Re: postgresql 8.3 logging user passwords in clear text|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2010-08-24 16:38:24|
|Subject: Re: replication solution|