On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:55:54AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 20.02.23 23:58, Nathan Bossart wrote: >> For now, I've reworded these as "must inherit privileges of". > > I don't have a good mental model of all this role inheritance, personally, > but I fear that this change makes the messages more jargony and less clear. > Maybe the original wording was good enough.
I'm fine with that. > "admin option" is sort of a natural language term, I think, so we don't need > to parametrize it as "%s option". Also, there are no other "options" in > this context, I think. v16 introduces the INHERIT and SET options. I don't have a strong opinion about parameterizing it, though. My intent was to consistently capitalize all the attributes and options. > A general thought: It seems we currently don't have any error messages that > address the user like "You must do this". Do we want to go there? Should we > try for a more impersonal wording like > > "You must have the %s attribute to create roles." > > "Current user must have the %s attribute to create roles." > > "%s attribute is required to create roles." I think I like the last option the most. In general, I agree with trying to avoid the second-person phrasing. > By the way, I'm not sure what the separation between 0001 and 0002 is > supposed to be. I'll combine them. I first started with user.c only, but we kept finding new messages to improve. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com