* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2014-12-04 17:06:02 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Would you agree with Peter that, rather than focus on if the errdetail() > > involves an implementation detail or not, we should go ahead and add the > > "You must have SELECT rights ..." to the existing cases where we just > > say "permission denied"? > > I think adding helpful information isn't a bad idea. It's not always > obvious which permission is required to do something. [...] > > I didn't bring this up and I'm getting a bit put-out by the constant > > implications that it's just all me and my crazy ideas for consistency. > > I don't mind much being outvoted or convinced by better reasoning. But > you've shown so far no recognition of the fact that the new message is > much longer without much of additional detail. And you've largely > argumented using arguments that I found absolutely unconvincing.
I agree that the new message is longer. I don't much care, no.
I'm confused by the comment above and then this one- surely error
messages from lack of SELECT or similar rights are way more commonly
emitted than ones about the replication role attribute? You are,
seemingly, agreeing with making the error message emitted when SELECT is
used longer while saying that we shouldn't make the error message about
the replication role attribute longer?
Is there something special about the replciation role attribute case
that makes it different from the SELECT rights?
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
