From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: McGehee, Robert <Robert.McGehee@geodecapital.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Unable to drop role
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:36:05 -0400
Message-ID: <27616.1282656965@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EEBC169715EB8C438D3C9283AF0F201C08DF4CAF@MSGBOSCLM2WIN.DMN1.FMR.COM>
References: <EEBC169715EB8C438D3C9283AF0F201C08DF4C41@MSGBOSCLM2WIN.DMN1.FMR.COM>
<16094.1282608675@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<EEBC169715EB8C438D3C9283AF0F201C08DF4CAF@MSGBOSCLM2WIN.DMN1.FMR.COM>
"McGehee, Robert" <Robert.McGehee@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?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, Robert.McGehee@geodecapital.com, alvherre@commandprompt.com
Subject: Re: Unable to drop role
In-Reply-To: <27616.1282656965@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox