Re: Raise a WARNING if a REVOKE affects nothing?
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Raise a WARNING if a REVOKE affects nothing? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZ+79wnTCt56YBnbPw-=0FPF-CzgL=NjnQip0MtORp2NQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Raise a WARNING if a REVOKE affects nothing? (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Raise a WARNING if a REVOKE affects nothing?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:31:29PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> It'd really help if REVOKE consistently raised warnings when it didn't >> actually revoke anything. > > +1 > > This will invite the same mixed feelings as the CREATE x IF NOT EXISTS > notices, but I think it's worthwhile. Just to ask a possibly stupid question: why is attempting to a REVOKE a non-existent privilege anything other than an ERROR? We would throw an ERROR if you tried to insert into a nonexistent table, or if you tried to drop a nonexistent table, or if you tried to call a nonexistent function, so why not also here? We could have REVOKE IF EXISTS for the current behavior (and users could boost client_min_messages to suppress the notice when deisred). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: