public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: R Ransbottom <[email protected]>
To: Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Documentation:  21.5. Default Roles
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 22:56:48 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 02:45:02PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Bruce Momjian ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan  7, 2020 at 11:46:31AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2019-12-27 at 12:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 05:44:10AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> > > > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html
> > > > > Description:
> > > > > 
> > > > > The title is wrong.   The roles are not defaults; they are predefined and
> > > > > privileged.  The title suggests that a user should expect  to be assigned
> > > > > these roles.   "21.5 Sub-Administrator Roles"  would be accurate--improving
> > > > > clarity over all  and removing any need to explain why postgres is not in
> > > > > this list of roles.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Good points.  I have developed the attached documentation patch which
> > > > includes your ideas.
> > > 
> > > I think that "predefined role" is better than "default role".
> > 
> > Thanks, patch applied through 9.6.
> 
> Erm, I didn't agree with this and pointed to reasons why it was based,
> for starters, on a misunderstanding and further wasn't a particularly

I went to the documentation for clarity.  I read a section that was not
pertinent to my issue because it is poorly titled.  These roles
are not defaults in any sense.

> good idea anyway.  I'm not happy that it was committed, and to have been
> back-patched strikes me as even worse.  What about existing links to
> things like: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/default-roles.html
> which will now be broken, like from here?:
> 
> https://paquier.xyz/postgresql-2/postgres-11-new-system-roles/

I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere
should be Postgresql's own documentation.

> least 5 references still to 'default role' in the documentation after

> things like 'DEFAULT_ROLE_WRITE_SERVER_FILES' in the code vs. the

No doubt, there is more documentation needing fixing.  I am impressed
by the quality of Pg's documentation overall.

> In short, I don't agree with this change, which strikes me as looking
> largely like it's trying to make PG look more like Oracle than anything
> else, but if we're going to move in this direction we should only be
> doing so in master and

It is incorrect to suppose that I am trying to "make PG look ... like
Oracle".  I don't know what Oracle looks like; I've only used msql (not
mysql) and Pg.

"Only .. in master" is a future far away.  Less so for you.


Stephen, thank you.
Rob

view thread (45+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Documentation:  21.5. Default Roles
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox