Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views

From: Dian Fay <dian(dot)m(dot)fay(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views
Date: 2018-08-16 13:36:29
Message-ID: b942866a-cdd7-c51e-11c2-3edd875fad5c@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fair enough! Here's a new version.

On 8/16/18 12:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dian Fay <dian(dot)m(dot)fay(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I feel resorting to the infinitive asks more involvement of the reader,
>> while leading with the responsible role(s) helps shortcut the process of
>> determining whether what follows is relevant. Efficiency is always a
>> virtue, although this is admittedly more than a little academic for a
>> one-sentence addition!
> I think Michael's point is that this formulation is unlike what we have
> elsewhere for similar statements. Looking around, it seems like the
> typical phraseology would be more like
>
> "You must own the materialized view to use REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW."
>
> It is not really customary to call out the superuser exception
> explicitly, because if we did, we'd be mentioning superusers in every
> other sentence. The point is covered by existing documentation that
> says something to the effect of superusers bypassing all permissions
> checks; and I think there's also a statement somewhere about superusers
> implicitly being members of every role, which is a different way of
> arriving at the same conclusion.
>
> In any case, it's definitely an oversight that the REFRESH reference
> page fails to address permissions at all. +1 for adding something.
>
> regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-docs-note-ownership-requirement-for-refreshing-mater.patch text/x-patch 582 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Liudmila Mantrova 2018-08-16 13:57:41 Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-08-16 13:22:14 Re: remove ancient pre-dlopen dynloader code