MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157742545062.1149.11052653770497832538@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <20191227171654.GA2992@momjian.us>
 <8c2f4f1b90c993c8c6338b978a78a9ebbcd1c934.camel@cybertec.at>
 <20200114181331.GB10430@momjian.us>
 <20200114194502.GX3195@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <20200119035648.3k4d3erobborxwv3@rat.local>
 <957c35e3-8023-ebe6-3b51-3a620b66ae82@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20200120160258.GA28095@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <20200120160258.GA28095@momjian.us>
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:45:16 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CANP8+jJ7OcuGTgvk+S-fvWSj_KPjemV6vvhamj1g9zHuQx7a2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Ian Barwick <ian.barwick@2ndquadrant.com>,
 R Ransbottom <rirans@comcast.net>,
	Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e77804059c96b1d9"
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000e77804059c96b1d9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 16:03, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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

--000000000000e77804059c96b1d9
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 16:03, Bruce Momji=
an &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bruce@momjian.us">bruce@momjian.us</a>&gt; wrote:<=
br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;=
border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 a=
t 12:23:48PM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewh=
ere<br>
&gt; &gt; should be Postgresql&#39;s own documentation.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Indeed, however it&#39;s important that the PostgreSQL documentation r=
emains<br>
&gt; stable for released versions.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; As-is, the current patch set would result in the term &quot;default ro=
le(s)&quot;<br>
&gt; disappearing from the documentation in the next minor release, which i=
s<br>
&gt; bound to cause confusion for anyone searching the documentation for th=
e<br>
&gt; term they&#39;re familiar with (unless they happen to be reading this =
thread<br>
&gt; or following the git commit log). Cue cries of &quot;OMG Postgres remo=
ved a<br>
&gt; feature in a minor release!!!?!!&quot;.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; And as Stephen mentions, it will break a lot of secondary documentatio=
n -<br>
&gt; not just blogs but things like internal training=C2=A0 materials etc.<=
br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; If this change is made (which I&#39;m personally not against), then it=
 should be<br>
&gt; only from PostgreSQL 13. For 9.6 ~ 12, IMHO it would be better to twea=
k the<br>
&gt; existing documentation to somehow mention that &quot;default roles&quo=
t; should be<br>
&gt; thought of as &quot;prefined roles&quot;, and note they will be called=
 this from Pg13.<br>
<br>
Usually when I apply &quot;wording&quot; doc patches to head only, someone<=
br>
complains that it should be backpatched, so I did that in this case.=C2=A0 =
If<br>
we want to change that idea, we need to agree on the criteria.<br></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div>True, but it&#39;s not a wording patch, you&#39;re =
entirely renaming a feature.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with the chan=
ge of default to predefined, but it shouldn&#39;t be backpatched.</div><div=
><br></div><div>There should be a comment in there that it was previously k=
nown as &quot;default roles&quot;, with indexed terms for both.</div></div>=
<div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Simon Rigg=
s<span style=3D"color:rgb(136,136,136)">=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0</span><a href=3D"http://www.2ndquadrant.com/" st=
yle=3D"color:rgb(17,85,204)" target=3D"_blank">http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/<=
/a><br style=3D"color:rgb(136,136,136)">PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterp=
rise<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

--000000000000e77804059c96b1d9--