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 b942866a-cdd7-c51e-11c2-3edd875fad5c@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materializedviews
List pgsql-hackers
Fair enough! Here's a new version.


On 8/16/18 12:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dian Fay <dian.m.fay@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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!
> I think Michael's point is that this formulation is unlike what we have
> elsewhere for similar statements.  Looking around, it seems like the
> typical phraseology would be more like
>
> "You must own the materialized view to use REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW."
>
> It is not really customary to call out the superuser exception
> explicitly, because if we did, we'd be mentioning superusers in every
> other sentence.  The point is covered by existing documentation that
> says something to the effect of superusers bypassing all permissions
> checks; and I think there's also a statement somewhere about superusers
> implicitly being members of every role, which is a different way of
> arriving at the same conclusion.
>
> In any case, it's definitely an oversight that the REFRESH reference
> page fails to address permissions at all.  +1 for adding something.
>
>             regards, tom lane

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: remove ancient pre-dlopen dynloader code
Next
From: Liudmila Mantrova
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().