Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 09:58:46 -0800
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: improving user.c error messages
Message-ID: <20230309175846.GA3626988@nathanxps13>
References: <20230127000936.GA1998073@nathanxps13>
 <20230127183119.e5jtyh4g2md57ctb@alvherre.pgsql>
 <20230127231507.GA2221340@nathanxps13>
 <20230207201009.GA450353@nathanxps13>
 <e1bbef97-ed13-f6ad-8d21-b2ebc251394b@enterprisedb.com>
 <20230220190210.GA3481922@nathanxps13>
 <20230220225852.GA3940888@nathanxps13>
 <abf97f0d-79b4-217c-2ea8-d081648d9a6d@enterprisedb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <abf97f0d-79b4-217c-2ea8-d081648d9a6d@enterprisedb.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230309175846.GA3626988%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

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