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 |
Date: | 2021-03-12 09:16:18 |
Message-ID: | 6e4aea1ba0499f0c568f4759674b3b02b1ccc3c7.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
> patch?
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.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
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 |