On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 at 06:23, David G. Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 4:43 PM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Shlok/Chao-San. >> >> How about this alternative wording: >> >> <para> >> To create a publication using any of <literal>FOR ALL TABLES</literal>, >> <literal>FOR ALL SEQUENCES</literal>, or >> <literal>FOR TABLES IN SCHEMA</literal>, the user must be a superuser. >> To alter a publication using <literal>ADD TABLE</literal>, the user must >> have ownership rights on the table. To alter a publication using >> <literal>ADD TABLES IN SCHEMA</literal>, the user must be a superuser. >> </para> >> > > I initially preferred Chao Li's version but upon deeper consideration I've > settled on this variant. The conjunctions in the other are nice, but I've > come to like how create and alter are better separated here. And the choice > to list "add table" first breaks up the string of superuser required commands > when switching from creating to altering. > > Kinda feel we should start this with the individual table creation case > though: > > To create a publication using FOR TABLE, the user must have ownership rights > on all listed tables. To create a publication using any of ... the user must > be a superuser. To alter ... > > The alter case likewise accepts multiple tables... > Thanks Chao-san, Peter and David for reviewing the patch. I also felt the version shared by Peter is more appropriate. I have made the suggested changes by David.
Thanks, Shlok Kyal
v2-0001-Improve-documentation-of-publication-privilege-ch.patch
Description: Binary data
