public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Simon Riggs <[email protected]>
To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Ian Barwick <[email protected]>
Cc: R Ransbottom <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:45:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CANP8+jJ7OcuGTgvk+S-fvWSj_KPjemV6vvhamj1g9zHuQx7a2A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 16:03, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:23:48PM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:
> > > I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere
> > > should be Postgresql's own documentation.
> >
> > Indeed, however it's important that the PostgreSQL documentation remains
> > stable for released versions.
> >
> > As-is, the current patch set would result in the term "default role(s)"
> > disappearing from the documentation in the next minor release, which is
> > bound to cause confusion for anyone searching the documentation for the
> > term they're familiar with (unless they happen to be reading this thread
> > or following the git commit log). Cue cries of "OMG Postgres removed a
> > feature in a minor release!!!?!!".
> >
> > And as Stephen mentions, it will break a lot of secondary documentation -
> > not just blogs but things like internal training materials etc.
> >
> > If this change is made (which I'm personally not against), then it
> should be
> > only from PostgreSQL 13. For 9.6 ~ 12, IMHO it would be better to tweak
> the
> > existing documentation to somehow mention that "default roles" should be
> > thought of as "prefined roles", and note they will be called this from
> Pg13.
>
> Usually when I apply "wording" doc patches to head only, someone
> complains that it should be backpatched, so I did that in this case. If
> we want to change that idea, we need to agree on the criteria.
>
True, but it's not a wording patch, you're entirely renaming a feature.
I agree with the change of default to predefined, but it shouldn't be
backpatched.
There should be a comment in there that it was previously known as "default
roles", with indexed terms for both.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/;
PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterprise
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], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles
In-Reply-To: <CANP8+jJ7OcuGTgvk+S-fvWSj_KPjemV6vvhamj1g9zHuQx7a2A@mail.gmail.com>
* 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