| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, R Ransbottom <rirans(at)comcast(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles |
| Date: | 2020-01-20 22:13:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20200120221357.GA28881@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 06:45:16PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 16:03, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Usually when I apply "wording" doc patches to head only, someone
> complains that it should be backpatched, so I did that in this case. If
> we want to change that idea, we need to agree on the criteria.
>
> True, but it's not a wording patch, you're entirely renaming a feature.
>
> I agree with the change of default to predefined, but it shouldn't be
> backpatched.
>
> There should be a comment in there that it was previously known as "default
> roles", with indexed terms for both.
Well, I am renaming the documentation label for the feature. Is that
different than wording? I guess I can see that. If everyone agrees I
can revert the backpatch, but I don't want to do that if other people
are going to say this should be backpatched.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-01-21 01:21:01 | Re: not clear what it means |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2020-01-20 18:45:16 | Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles |