Thank you for the feedback. I've taken it into account and come up with a partial rewrite of my first pass, and posted it to -hackers so we can close this thread out.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cakfquwyy3ei05kpggk2del_pe5yjkdybxb362xuthovpqjf...@mail.gmail.com Some replies below. On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 7:35 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 16:04 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > Here's a slightly more detailed patch to consider to cover both the > transference of ownership as well as documenting precisely what ownership > means. > > Ok, you want to describe that in more detail. But you should preserve > the <firstterm> when the term is used for the first time. > Yeah, I need to get better at looking for and applying semantic markup. Note that the documentation is careful to avoid the term "privilege" > when speaking about the latter: below, it says "The *right* to modify or > destroy an object is inherent in being the object's owner". > > We should leave that as it is. > Agreed. I was going for "first encounter clarification" only, not intending to define the term fully. I've taken a different approach with the new patch - not redefining the main term but adding appropriate qualifications for limited use in learning how things work. > I think we should say "owner" instead of "recorded owner". Also, is it > necessary > to detail to the level of system catalog columns? > > Agreed, with the overall flow of the content and context improved that specific sub-paragraph can be made much simpler without loss of clarity. David J.
