On 2014-12-04 15:59:17 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > I have a hard time wrapping my head around what a *lot* of our users ask > when they see a given error message, but if our error message is 'you > must have a pear-shaped object to run this command' then I imagine that > a new-to-PG user might think "well, I can't create pear shaped objects > in PG, so I guess this just isn't supported." That's not necessairly > any fault of ours, but I do think "permission denied" reduces the chance > that there's any confusion about the situation.
I've a hard time taking this comment seriously. If can't believe that you think that comment bears relation to the error message we're discussing. > > The answer is that there really > > *isn't* any additional information conveyed by your proposal rewrite; > > To be sure it's clear, I *don't* agree with this. You and I don't see > any additional information in it because we're familiar with the system > and know all about role attributes, the GRANT system, and everything > else. I'm not looking to change the error message because it's going to > make it clearer to you or to me or to anyone else on this list though. > The "different style" is what's in the error style guidelines. I think you're vastly over-interpreting the guidelines because that happens to suite your position. None of the current error message violates any of: > The primary message should be short, factual, and avoid reference to > implementation details such as specific function names. "Short" means > "should fit on one line under normal conditions". Use a detail message > if needed to keep the primary message short, or if you feel a need to > mention implementation details such as the particular system call that > failed. Both primary and detail messages should be factual. Use a hint > message for suggestions about what to do to fix the problem, especially > if the suggestion might not always be applicable. And I don't for a second buy your argument that the permissions involved are an implemementation detail. If you say that you like the new message better because it's more consistent or more beautiful I can buy that. But don't try to find justifications in guidelines when they don't contain that. > > I just don't understand why you want to pointlessly tinker with this. > > Because I don't feel it's pointless to improve the consistency of the > error messaging and I don't like that it's inconsistent today. Then please do so outside of patches/threads that do something pretty much unrelated. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
