Greetings, * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) 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. > > > > +1 > > > > 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 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/ Or that the documentation wasn't properly updated to reflect this change as a simple "git grep 'default role'" would have shown? There's at least 5 references still to 'default role' in the documentation after this commit. Not to mention that, with this patch, we now have confusion between things like 'DEFAULT_ROLE_WRITE_SERVER_FILES' in the code vs. the documentation. 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 we should be much more careful making sure that the documentation, at least, is updated and consistent and that appropriate comments are made to the code to explain that DEFAULT_ROLE in the code is referring to "predefined roles" (or we should change the code, though I can understand if there's argument that doing so would create unnecessary back-patching hazards.. though there isn't all *that* much code, so I could go either way on that myself). Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
