Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft
Date: 2021-05-22 23:29:45
Message-ID: 20210522232945.GO20766@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greetings,

* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> I have committed the first draft of the PG 14 release notes. You can
> see the most current build of them here:
>
> https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-14.html

It occurs to me that the wording around the new default roles could
probably be better. Specifically:

Add predefined roles pg_read_all_data and pg_write_all_data (Stephen Frost)

These non-login roles give read-only/write-only access to all objects.

Might be better as:

These non-login roles give read, or write, access to all tables, views,
and sequences.

(These roles don't actually allow, for example, a function to be
redefined, so saying 'all objects' isn't quite right either.)

While these roles could be used to create a 'read only' or 'write only'
role, they, themselves, do not explicitly convey that on to a role
because they don't do anything to prevent someone from GRANT'ing other
rights to some role which has been GRANT'd these predefined roles. I
don't think anyone on this list thought differently from that, but the
phrasing strikes me as potentially confusing.

Maybe another way would be:

These non-login roles give (only) read, or write, access to all tables,
views, and sequences.

but I don't think saying 'only' there really adds anything and instead
invites confusion.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2021-05-23 00:16:58 Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2021-05-22 23:27:06 Re: Development version of release notes