To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: John McKown <joarmc@swbell.net>,
	Postgresql Docs ML <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: the docs, and newbies. 
In-reply-to: <200101220341.WAA07325@candle.pha.pa.us> 
References: <200101220341.WAA07325@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
	message dated "Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:41:16 -0500"
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:04:42 -0500
Message-ID: <17193.980136282@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Does anyone want to comment on this idea?

Forget it.  How many people here are going to type out "administrative
user" instead of "superuser" every time they need to mention the term
in email?  How many people here can even spell it correctly without
thinking twice?  It's not gonna happen.

>> I like that name. It is more accurate and less "UNIXy". And more people
>> would understand what a "administrative user" is that a superuser.

I disagree with two out of those three claims, and the third ("less
UNIXy") may be correct but it is not particularly important.  The
Postgres superuser stands in exactly the same relationship to the
database that the Unix superuser does to a Unix system.  Therefore,
the term is perfectly accurate and will convey exactly the intended
meaning to anyone who's familar with Unix system administration.
Indeed, the only people who are likely to be confused are those who
make the mistake of assuming that the Postgres superuser is the same
as the Unix superuser ... and only those who have heard of a Unix
superuser can possibly make that error in the first place.  Nobody
has ever heard of an "administrative user" or is likely to draw all
the correct implications from that term at first glance.

"Superuser" is short, easy to spell correctly, and has the right
overtones for people familiar with Unix sysadmin duties.  If you
want to advocate a different term, try to pick one that retains
at least some of those properties.

			regards, tom lane