Re: superuser() shortcuts

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: superuser() shortcuts
Date: 2014-11-23 20:38:56
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-11-21 10:12:40 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > I still think this change makes the error message more verbose, without
> > any win in clarity.
> Can we agree that there should be consistency?

Consistency with what? Are you thinking of the messages in
aclck.c:no_priv_msg? I don't think that's really comparable. A
permission denied on a relation is much easier to understand than
replication permissions and such.

It'd surely not be better if pg_basebackup would a error message bar
actually helpful information. Btw, the replication permission use in
postinit.c isn't related to slots.

> I'm not really particular about which way we go with the specific
> wording (suggestions welcome..) but the inconsistency should be dealt
> with.



Andres Freund

Andres Freund
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-11-23 21:40:30 Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-11-23 20:32:43 Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs