|From:||Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>|
|To:||"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: documentation fix for SET ROLE|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Thu, 2021-03-11 at 22:30 +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 3/11/21, 12:11 PM, "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > The minor bit of documentation pseudo-redundancy doesn’t bother me if I accept
> > they are there own separate thing. The fact that set role and set session
> > authorization are entirely distinct top-level commands in our documentation,
> > as opposed to bundled in with plain set, is a much more convincing example
> > for treating them uniquely and not just additional GUCs.
> I see your point. What do you think about something like the attached
After sleeping on it, I have come to think that it is excessive to write
so much documentation for a feature that is that unimportant.
It takes some effort to come up with a good use case for it.
I think we can add a few lines to ALTER ROLE, perhaps ALTER DATABASE
(although I don't see what sense it could make to set that on the database level),
and briefly explain the difference between RESET ROLE and SET ROLE NONE.
I think adding too much detail will harm - anyone who needs to know the
exact truth can resort to the implementation.
I'll try to come up with a proposal later.
|Next Message||Hywel Carver||2021-03-12 09:20:18||Re: Self-join optimisation|
|Previous Message||Hywel Carver||2021-03-12 09:05:06||Re: Removing unneeded self joins|