On 20.02.23 23:58, Nathan Bossart wrote:
Similarly -- this is an existing issue but we might as well look at it -- in
something like
must be superuser or a role with privileges of the
pg_write_server_files role
the phrase "a role with the privileges of that other role" seems ambiguous.
Doesn't it really mean you must be a member of that role?
Membership alone is not sufficient. You must also inherit the privileges
of the role via the INHERIT option. I thought about making this something
like
must have the INHERIT option on role %s
but I'm not sure that's accurate either. That wording makes it sound lіke
you need to be granted membership to the role directly WITH INHERIT OPTION,
but what you really need is membership, direct or indirect, with an INHERIT
chain up to the role in question. However, it looks like "must have the
ADMIN option on role %s" is used to mean something similar, so perhaps I am
overthinking it.
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.
A couple of other thoughts:
"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.
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."
By the way, I'm not sure what the separation between 0001 and 0002 is
supposed to be.
