"McGehee, Robert" <Robert(dot)McGehee(at)geodecapital(dot)com> writes:
> Thanks Tom and Alvaro for clearing up my confusion.
> \l showed that a485099 had both (C)reate and (T)emporary access.
> Revoking those allowed me to drop the role. Thanks for the help!
I wonder whether Robert's confusion doesn't stem from a poor choice
of message wording:
>> template1=# DROP ROLE a485099;
>> ERROR: role "a485099" cannot be dropped because some objects depend on it
>> DETAIL: access to database template1
I can see how "access to" might be read as specifically meaning "CONNECT
privilege for". Should we change this message from "access to whatever"
to "privileges for whatever", or some such wording?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-08-24 13:38:43|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5305: Postgres service stops when closing
|Previous:||From: Boxuan Zhai||Date: 2010-08-24 13:35:48|
|Subject: Re: gSoC add MERGE command new patch -- merge_v104|
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Silvio Brandani||Date: 2010-08-24 13:46:08|
|Subject: replication solution|
|Previous:||From: McGehee, Robert||Date: 2010-08-24 13:25:30|
|Subject: Re: Unable to drop role |