Re: superuser() shortcuts

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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