On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> 1. It makes more of the crappy error message change that Andres and I >> already objected to on the other thread. Whether you disagree with >> those objections or not, don't make an end-run around them by putting >> more of the same stuff into patches on other threads. > > The error message clearly needed to be updated either way or I wouldn't > have touched it. I changed it to match what I feel is the prevelant and > certainly more commonly seen messaging from PG when it comes to > permissions errors, and drew attention to it by commenting on the fact > that I changed it. Doing otherwise would have drawn similar criticism > (is it did upthread, by Peter or Alvaro, I believe..) that I wasn't > updating it to match the messaging which we should be using.
OK, I guess that's a fair point. >> I think it's unfathomable that you would consider anything in this >> patch a back-patchable bug fix. It's clearly a straight-up behavior >> change... or more properly three different changes, only one of which >> I agree with. > > I didn't think it was back-patchable and stated as much. I anticipated > that argument and provided my thoughts on it. I *do* think it's wrong > to be using GetUserId() in this case and it's only very slightly > mollified by being documented that way. It's not wrong. It's just different than what you happen to prefer. It's fine to want to change things, but "not the way I would have done it" is not the same as "arguably a bug". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
