Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, at 11:47 AM, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote: > "Add predefined roles pg_read_all_data and pg_write_all_data (Stephen Frost) > > These non-login roles can be used to give read or write permission to all > tables, views, and sequences." > > pg_read_all_data links to "Predefined roles", pg_write_all_data does not. Is > that on purpose? At least it looks strange. It seems so. Once you click on the link, you will notice that pg_write_all_data is there too. Role names are similar to make the reader suspect that both descriptions will be on the same page. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes
Greetings, * Euler Taveira (eu...@eulerto.com) wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, at 11:47 AM, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote: > > "Add predefined roles pg_read_all_data and pg_write_all_data (Stephen Frost) > > > > These non-login roles can be used to give read or write permission to all > > tables, views, and sequences." > > > > pg_read_all_data links to "Predefined roles", pg_write_all_data does not. > > Is that on purpose? At least it looks strange. > It seems so. Once you click on the link, you will notice that > pg_write_all_data > is there too. Role names are similar to make the reader suspect that both > descriptions will be on the same page. I tend to agree that it'd make sense to have them both as links. I've CC'd Bruce to make sure he sees this discussion. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 05:46:16PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Euler Taveira (eu...@eulerto.com) wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, at 11:47 AM, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote: > > > "Add predefined roles pg_read_all_data and pg_write_all_data (Stephen > > > Frost) > > > > > > These non-login roles can be used to give read or write permission to all > > > tables, views, and sequences." > > > > > > pg_read_all_data links to "Predefined roles", pg_write_all_data does not. > > > Is that on purpose? At least it looks strange. > > It seems so. Once you click on the link, you will notice that > > pg_write_all_data > > is there too. Role names are similar to make the reader suspect that both > > descriptions will be on the same page. > > I tend to agree that it'd make sense to have them both as links. > > I've CC'd Bruce to make sure he sees this discussion. I normally link to only the _first_ mention of something, and since they are both in the same section, I didn't add a link for the second one. Adding a second link might suggest that there is more information available, even though the coarseness of our links means that section is the same. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes
Greetings, On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 21:35 Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 05:46:16PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > * Euler Taveira (eu...@eulerto.com) wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, at 11:47 AM, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote: > > > > "Add predefined roles pg_read_all_data and pg_write_all_data > (Stephen Frost) > > > > > > > > These non-login roles can be used to give read or write permission > to all tables, views, and sequences." > > > > > > > > pg_read_all_data links to "Predefined roles", pg_write_all_data does > not. Is that on purpose? At least it looks strange. > > > It seems so. Once you click on the link, you will notice that > pg_write_all_data > > > is there too. Role names are similar to make the reader suspect that > both > > > descriptions will be on the same page. > > > > I tend to agree that it'd make sense to have them both as links. > > > > I've CC'd Bruce to make sure he sees this discussion. > > I normally link to only the _first_ mention of something, and since they > are both in the same section, I didn't add a link for the second one. > Adding a second link might suggest that there is more information > available, even though the coarseness of our links means that section is > the same. Perhaps the wording would be better as something like: New predefined roles for granting access to read/write all tables have been added, called pg_read_all_data and pg_write_all_data ..? Or something along those lines? Just a thought. Perhaps another idea would be to make one link which includes both names. Thanks, Stephen >
Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 09:47:47PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 21:35 Bruce Momjian wrote: > I normally link to only the _first_ mention of something, and since they > are both in the same section, I didn't add a link for the second one. > Adding a second link might suggest that there is more information > available, even though the coarseness of our links means that section is > the same. > > Perhaps the wording would be better as something like: > > New predefined roles for granting access to read/write all > tables have been added, called pg_read_all_data and pg_write_all_data ..? > > Or something along those lines? I have avoided doing that since the link is about the roles, not about the term "predefined roles". > Just a thought. > > Perhaps another idea would be to make one link which includes both names. Uh, that is going to look odd, I am afraid. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes
Greetings, On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 21:57 Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 09:47:47PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 21:35 Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I normally link to only the _first_ mention of something, and since > they > > are both in the same section, I didn't add a link for the second one. > > Adding a second link might suggest that there is more information > > available, even though the coarseness of our links means that > section is > > the same. > > > > Perhaps the wording would be better as something like: > > > > New predefined roles for granting access to read/write > all > > tables have been added, called pg_read_all_data and pg_write_all_data ..? > > > > Or something along those lines? > > I have avoided doing that since the link is about the roles, not about > the term "predefined roles". I tend to agree that it’s about the roles, but it isn’t about just one of them … > Just a thought. > > > > Perhaps another idea would be to make one link which includes both names. > > Uh, that is going to look odd, I am afraid. This thread started with the point that the current entry looks odd. I’m not sure this would look more odd than what is there now. Thanks, Stephen >
Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:01:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Just a thought. > > > > Perhaps another idea would be to make one link which includes both > names. > > Uh, that is going to look odd, I am afraid. > > This thread started with the point that the current entry looks odd. I’m not > sure this would look more odd than what is there now. If you look at the current doc version: https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-14.html Notice that for these two items: Remove factorial operators ! and !! (Mark Dilger) The factorial() function is still supported. Also remove function numeric_fac(). Disallow factorial() of negative numbers (Peter Eisentraut) Previously such cases returned 1. Only the first mention of "factorial()" uses a link; the second item doesn't have any link. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
Re: Link missing in the 14 release notes
>On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:01:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > Just a thought. >> > >> > Perhaps another idea would be to make one link which includes both >>names. >> >> Uh, that is going to look odd, I am afraid. >> >> This thread started with the point that the current entry looks odd. I’m not >> sure this would look more odd than what is there now. >If you look at the current doc version: > > https://momjian.us/pgsql_docs/release-14.html > >Notice that for these two items: > > Remove factorial operators ! and !! (Mark Dilger) > The factorial() function is still supported. Also remove function >numeric_fac(). > > Disallow factorial() of negative numbers (Peter Eisentraut) > Previously such cases returned 1. > >Only the first mention of "factorial()" uses a link; the second item >doesn't have any link. There are other places as well, like this on: "The postgres_fdw supports these type of scans if async_capable is set." async_capable is not a link. Or this one: "This speeds normalize() and IS NORMALIZED." I still think it should be more consistent and all should be links, even if they point to the same section. Regards Daniel
