Subject: Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized
 views
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
References: <745abbd2-a1a0-ead8-2cb2-768c16747d97@gmail.com>
 <20180816010355.GH3681@paquier.xyz>
 <a1ccf5bd-f69c-6b73-77a0-6b6e719e01de@gmail.com>
 <13833.1534392450@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Dian Fay <dian.m.fay@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b942866a-cdd7-c51e-11c2-3edd875fad5c@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:36:29 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <13833.1534392450@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------C4DA8558D5D785457E35A099"
Content-Language: en-HK
Precedence: bulk

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------C4DA8558D5D785457E35A099
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Fair enough! Here's a new version.


On 8/16/18 12:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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

--------------C4DA8558D5D785457E35A099
Content-Type: text/x-patch;
 name="0001-docs-note-ownership-requirement-for-refreshing-mater.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename*0="0001-docs-note-ownership-requirement-for-refreshing-mater.pa";
 filename*1="tch"

diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/refresh_materialized_view.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/refresh_materialized_view.sgml
index 9cf01a25a5..f001a661e1 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/refresh_materialized_view.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/refresh_materialized_view.sgml
@@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW [ CONCURRENTLY ] <replaceable class="parameter">name</
  <refsect1>
   <title>Notes</title>
 
+  <para>
+   You must own the materialized view in order to use REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW.
+  </para>
+
   <para>
    While the default index for future
    <xref linkend="sql-cluster"/>

--------------C4DA8558D5D785457E35A099--