On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 21:35 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 05:46:16PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Euler Taveira (euler@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 <a href=“…”>predefined roles</a> 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.
