Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views

From: Dian Fay <dian(dot)m(dot)fay(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views
Date: 2018-08-16 01:44:46
Message-ID: a1ccf5bd-f69c-6b73-77a0-6b6e719e01de@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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!

On 8/15/18 9:03 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 07:46:49PM -0400, Dian Fay wrote:
>> hi all! I discovered today that the REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW documentation
>> doesn't mention that only the owner (or a superuser) may actually perform
>> the refresh operation. This patch adds a note to that effect.
> I think that's a good idea. I would rewrite that a bit differently, like:
> To refresh a materialized view, one must be the materalized view's owner
> or a superuser.
>
> Thougts or objections?
> --
> Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Dilger 2018-08-16 01:44:57 Re: Facility for detecting insecure object naming
Previous Message Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan GCS Delivery) 2018-08-16 01:18:21 Update comment in errcodes.txt correctly