Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ago 24 09:36:05 -0400 2010:
> "McGehee, Robert" <robert.mcge...@geodecapital.com> writes:
> > Thanks Tom and Alvaro for clearing up my confusion.
> > \l showed that a485099 had both (C)reate and (T)emporary access.
> > Revoking those allowed me to drop the role. Thanks for the help!
>
> I wonder whether Robert's confusion doesn't stem from a poor choice
> of message wording:
>
> >> template1=# DROP ROLE a485099;
> >> ERROR: role "a485099" cannot be dropped because some objects depend on it
> >> DETAIL: access to database template1
>
> I can see how "access to" might be read as specifically meaning "CONNECT
> privilege for". Should we change this message from "access to whatever"
> to "privileges for whatever", or some such wording?
Code is here:
else if (deptype == SHARED_DEPENDENCY_ACL)
appendStringInfo(descs, _("access to %s"),
objdesc);
in StoreObjectDescription().
Happy to change it to whatever is deemed appropriate. "privileges for %s"
sounds good; I'll do that unless somebody comes up with a better idea
which outvotes this one.
Backpatch all the way to 8.1? Code doesn't exist prior to that.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
