From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Dian Fay <dian.m.fay@gmail.com>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized
 views
In-reply-to: <a1ccf5bd-f69c-6b73-77a0-6b6e719e01de@gmail.com>
References: <745abbd2-a1a0-ead8-2cb2-768c16747d97@gmail.com>
 <20180816010355.GH3681@paquier.xyz>
 <a1ccf5bd-f69c-6b73-77a0-6b6e719e01de@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Dian Fay <dian.m.fay@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 15 Aug 2018 21:44:46 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <13832.1534392450.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:07:30 -0400
Message-ID: <13833.1534392450@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Dian Fay <dian.m.fay@gmail.com> writes:
> I feel resorting to the infinitive asks more involvement of the reader, 
> while leading with the responsible role(s) helps shortcut the process of 
> determining whether what follows is relevant. Efficiency is always a 
> virtue, although this is admittedly more than a little academic for a 
> one-sentence addition!

I think Michael's point is that this formulation is unlike what we have
elsewhere for similar statements.  Looking around, it seems like the
typical phraseology would be more like

"You must own the materialized view to use REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW."

It is not really customary to call out the superuser exception
explicitly, because if we did, we'd be mentioning superusers in every
other sentence.  The point is covered by existing documentation that
says something to the effect of superusers bypassing all permissions
checks; and I think there's also a statement somewhere about superusers
implicitly being members of every role, which is a different way of
arriving at the same conclusion.

In any case, it's definitely an oversight that the REFRESH reference
page fails to address permissions at all.  +1 for adding something.

			regards, tom lane