Re: superuser() shortcuts

On 2014-10-28 09:43:35 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> All,
>
> * Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
> > * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > > > As I started looking at this, there are multiple other places where
> > > > these types of error messages occur (opclasscmds.c, user.c,
> > > > postinit.c, miscinit.c are just a few), not just around the changes in
> > > > this patch. If we change them in one place, wouldn't it be best to
> > > > change them in the rest? If that is the case, I'm afraid that might
> > > > distract from the purpose of this patch. Perhaps, if we want to
> > > > change them, then that should be submitted as a separate patch?
> > >
> > > Yeah. I'm just saying that maybe this patch should adopt whatever
> > > wording we agree to, not that we need to change other places. On the
> > > other hand, since so many other places have adopted the different
> > > wording, maybe there's a reason for it and if so, does anybody know what
> > > it is. But I have to say that it does look inconsistent to me.
> >
> > Updated patch attached. Comments welcome.
>
> Looking over this again, I had another thought about it- given that this
> changes the error messages returned for replication slots, which are new
> in 9.4, should it be back-patched to 9.4? Otherwise we'll put 9.4
> out and then immediately change these error messages in 9.5.

-1.

For one I'm less than convinced that the new messages are an
improvement. They seem to be more verbose without a corresponding
improvement in clarity.

For another I don't see any need to rush this into 9.4.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services