Hi, On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 02:45:02PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * 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. > > > > > > 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
I went to the documentation for clarity. I read a section that was not pertinent to my issue because it is poorly titled. These roles are not defaults in any sense. > 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/ I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere should be Postgresql's own documentation. > least 5 references still to 'default role' in the documentation after > things like 'DEFAULT_ROLE_WRITE_SERVER_FILES' in the code vs. the No doubt, there is more documentation needing fixing. I am impressed by the quality of Pg's documentation overall. > 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 It is incorrect to suppose that I am trying to "make PG look ... like Oracle". I don't know what Oracle looks like; I've only used msql (not mysql) and Pg. "Only .. in master" is a future far away. Less so for you. Stephen, thank you. Rob
