Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materializedviews - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dian Fay
Subject Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materializedviews
Date
Msg-id a1ccf5bd-f69c-6b73-77a0-6b6e719e01de@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materializedviews  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan GCS Delivery)"
Date:
Subject: Update comment in errcodes.txt correctly
Next
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: Facility for detecting insecure object naming