| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 20141123203856.GD28946@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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.
Meh.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| 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 |