From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: improving user.c error messages |
Date: | 2023-01-27 15:52:36 |
Message-ID: | 20230127155236.GA2043658@nathanxps13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 08:31:32AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I almost hate to bring this up since I'm not sure how far we want to
> go down this rat hole, but what should be our policy about mentioning
> superuser? I don't think we're entirely consistent right now, and I'm
> not sure whether every error message needs to mention that if you were
> the superuser you could do everything. Is that something we should
> mention always, never, or in some set of circumstances?
IMHO superuser should typically only be mentioned when it is the only way
to do something. Since superusers have all privileges, I think logs like
"superuser or privileges of X" are kind of redundant. If Robert has
privileges of X, we wouldn't say "privileges of X or Robert." We'd just
point to X. Ultimately, I feel like mentioning superuser in error messages
usually just makes the message longer without adding any useful
information.
I recognize that this is a bold opinion and that the policy to mention
superuser might need to be more nuanced in practice...
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-27 15:53:42 | Re: Set arbitrary GUC options during initdb |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-01-27 15:41:51 | Re: Set arbitrary GUC options during initdb |