Re: improving user.c error messages

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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