Thread: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html Description: The title is wrong. The roles are not defaults; they are predefined and privileged. The title suggests that a user should expect to be assigned these roles. "21.5 Sub-Administrator Roles" would be accurate--improving clarity over all and removing any need to explain why postgres is not in this list of roles. THE EXISTING 1st Paragraph: PostgreSQL provides a set of default roles which provide access to certain, commonly needed, privileged capabilities and information. Administrators can GRANT these roles to users and/or other roles in their environment, providing those users with access to the specified capabilities and information. A possible replacement: PostgreSQL provides predefined roles which allow access to various actions and information otherwise reserved to superusers. Administrators can GRANT these roles like any other role, but these roles are also special for allowing abilities not defined by any standard. Additionally: "commonly" above is confusing because the "administrative" context has not been introduced. In the paragraph following the table, the 2nd sentence starts: They grant a set of common privileges allowing the role to read various useful configuration settings, is better: They grant a set of privileges allowing the role to read various configuration settings, "Common" and "useful" are just noise at best. Everywhere in the section "default roles" should be "predefined roles". Though a note of the old title could be helpful to some searchers. Thank you.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 05:44:10AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html > Description: > > The title is wrong. The roles are not defaults; they are predefined and > privileged. The title suggests that a user should expect to be assigned > these roles. "21.5 Sub-Administrator Roles" would be accurate--improving > clarity over all and removing any need to explain why postgres is not in > this list of roles. > Good points. I have developed the attached documentation patch which includes your ideas. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Attachment
Greetings, * PG Doc comments form (noreply@postgresql.org) wrote: > The title is wrong. The roles are not defaults; they are predefined and > privileged. The title suggests that a user should expect to be assigned > these roles. "21.5 Sub-Administrator Roles" would be accurate--improving > clarity over all and removing any need to explain why postgres is not in > this list of roles. "postgres" isn't in the list because there is no default "postgres" role. There is a role created that's a superuser role that's given the same name as the user who is running 'initdb', but you can change that if you want. The roles that are listed are, indeed, the default roles that the PG system comes with- and no others. > PostgreSQL provides predefined roles which allow access to various actions > and information otherwise reserved to superusers. Oracle uses 'predefined' as the term, while SQL server talks about "Server-Level" and "Database-Level" roles. We don't have database-level roles yet but it seems entirely reasonable to me that we'd want something like that in the future (eg: a role that's able to read all of the data from a given database), so I'd be more inclined to go with the SQL server terminology here, if we're going to make any change. > Though a note of the old title could be helpful to some searchers. And that we've had them around for a number of years now is what makes me hesistate to make a change unless it's very clearly a good improvement and I'm not entirely sure that this is one. If you'd really like to have fun though, you might check out https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/user-manag.html which talks about "Database Roles" even though what we have are actually Cluster roles. Maybe we should just remove "Database" from that whole section and just talk about "Roles"... (happened on this while reviewing what google returned for various searches while thinking about this change). Thanks, Stephen
Attachment
On Fri, 2019-12-27 at 12:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 05:44:10AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html > > Description: > > > > The title is wrong. The roles are not defaults; they are predefined and > > privileged. The title suggests that a user should expect to be assigned > > these roles. "21.5 Sub-Administrator Roles" would be accurate--improving > > clarity over all and removing any need to explain why postgres is not in > > this list of roles. > > > > Good points. I have developed the attached documentation patch which > includes your ideas. +1 I think that "predefined role" is better than "default role". Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:46:31AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Fri, 2019-12-27 at 12:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 05:44:10AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html > > > Description: > > > > > > The title is wrong. The roles are not defaults; they are predefined and > > > privileged. The title suggests that a user should expect to be assigned > > > these roles. "21.5 Sub-Administrator Roles" would be accurate--improving > > > clarity over all and removing any need to explain why postgres is not in > > > this list of roles. > > > > > > > Good points. I have developed the attached documentation patch which > > includes your ideas. > > +1 > > I think that "predefined role" is better than "default role". Thanks, patch applied through 9.6. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Greetings, * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:46:31AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-12-27 at 12:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 05:44:10AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html > > > > Description: > > > > > > > > The title is wrong. The roles are not defaults; they are predefined and > > > > privileged. The title suggests that a user should expect to be assigned > > > > these roles. "21.5 Sub-Administrator Roles" would be accurate--improving > > > > clarity over all and removing any need to explain why postgres is not in > > > > this list of roles. > > > > > > > > > > Good points. I have developed the attached documentation patch which > > > includes your ideas. > > > > +1 > > > > I think that "predefined role" is better than "default role". > > Thanks, patch applied through 9.6. Erm, I didn't agree with this and pointed to reasons why it was based, for starters, on a misunderstanding and further wasn't a particularly good idea anyway. I'm not happy that it was committed, and to have been back-patched strikes me as even worse. What about existing links to things like: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/default-roles.html which will now be broken, like from here?: https://paquier.xyz/postgresql-2/postgres-11-new-system-roles/ Or that the documentation wasn't properly updated to reflect this change as a simple "git grep 'default role'" would have shown? There's at least 5 references still to 'default role' in the documentation after this commit. Not to mention that, with this patch, we now have confusion between things like 'DEFAULT_ROLE_WRITE_SERVER_FILES' in the code vs. the documentation. In short, I don't agree with this change, which strikes me as looking largely like it's trying to make PG look more like Oracle than anything else, but if we're going to move in this direction we should only be doing so in master and we should be much more careful making sure that the documentation, at least, is updated and consistent and that appropriate comments are made to the code to explain that DEFAULT_ROLE in the code is referring to "predefined roles" (or we should change the code, though I can understand if there's argument that doing so would create unnecessary back-patching hazards.. though there isn't all *that* much code, so I could go either way on that myself). Thanks, Stephen
Attachment
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 02:45:02PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > I think that "predefined role" is better than "default role". > > > > Thanks, patch applied through 9.6. > > Erm, I didn't agree with this and pointed to reasons why it was based, > for starters, on a misunderstanding and further wasn't a particularly > good idea anyway. I'm not happy that it was committed, and to have been > back-patched strikes me as even worse. What about existing links to > things like: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/default-roles.html > which will now be broken, like from here?: I talked to Stephen on the phone and he is going to fix the doc areas I missed, and add some C comments. :-) Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Hi, On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 02:45:02PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:46:31AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > > On Fri, 2019-12-27 at 12:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 05:44:10AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > > > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > > > > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html > > > > > Description: > > > > > > > > > > The title is wrong. The roles are not defaults; they are predefined and > > > > > privileged. The title suggests that a user should expect to be assigned > > > > > these roles. "21.5 Sub-Administrator Roles" would be accurate--improving > > > > > clarity over all and removing any need to explain why postgres is not in > > > > > this list of roles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good points. I have developed the attached documentation patch which > > > > includes your ideas. > > > > > > I think that "predefined role" is better than "default role". > > > > Thanks, patch applied through 9.6. > > Erm, I didn't agree with this and pointed to reasons why it was based, > for starters, on a misunderstanding and further wasn't a particularly I went to the documentation for clarity. I read a section that was not pertinent to my issue because it is poorly titled. These roles are not defaults in any sense. > good idea anyway. I'm not happy that it was committed, and to have been > back-patched strikes me as even worse. What about existing links to > things like: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/default-roles.html > which will now be broken, like from here?: > > https://paquier.xyz/postgresql-2/postgres-11-new-system-roles/ I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere should be Postgresql's own documentation. > least 5 references still to 'default role' in the documentation after > things like 'DEFAULT_ROLE_WRITE_SERVER_FILES' in the code vs. the No doubt, there is more documentation needing fixing. I am impressed by the quality of Pg's documentation overall. > In short, I don't agree with this change, which strikes me as looking > largely like it's trying to make PG look more like Oracle than anything > else, but if we're going to move in this direction we should only be > doing so in master and It is incorrect to suppose that I am trying to "make PG look ... like Oracle". I don't know what Oracle looks like; I've only used msql (not mysql) and Pg. "Only .. in master" is a future far away. Less so for you. Stephen, thank you. Rob
On 2020/01/19 12:56, R Ransbottom wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 02:45:02PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:46:31AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2019-12-27 at 12:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 05:44:10AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: >>>>>> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >>>>>> >>>>>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html >>>>>> Description: >>>>>> >>>>>> The title is wrong. The roles are not defaults; they are predefined and >>>>>> privileged. The title suggests that a user should expect to be assigned >>>>>> these roles. "21.5 Sub-Administrator Roles" would be accurate--improving >>>>>> clarity over all and removing any need to explain why postgres is not in >>>>>> this list of roles. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Good points. I have developed the attached documentation patch which >>>>> includes your ideas. >>>> >>>> I think that "predefined role" is better than "default role". >>> >>> Thanks, patch applied through 9.6. >> >> Erm, I didn't agree with this and pointed to reasons why it was based, >> for starters, on a misunderstanding and further wasn't a particularly > > I went to the documentation for clarity. I read a section that was not > pertinent to my issue because it is poorly titled. These roles > are not defaults in any sense. > >> good idea anyway. I'm not happy that it was committed, and to have been >> back-patched strikes me as even worse. What about existing links to >> things like: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/default-roles.html >> which will now be broken, like from here?: >> >> https://paquier.xyz/postgresql-2/postgres-11-new-system-roles/ > > I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere > should be Postgresql's own documentation. Indeed, however it's important that the PostgreSQL documentation remains stable for released versions. As-is, the current patch set would result in the term "default role(s)" disappearing from the documentation in the next minor release, which is bound to cause confusion for anyone searching the documentation for the term they're familiar with (unless they happen to be reading this thread or following the git commit log). Cue cries of "OMG Postgres removed a feature in a minor release!!!?!!". And as Stephen mentions, it will break a lot of secondary documentation - not just blogs but things like internal training materials etc. If this change is made (which I'm personally not against), then it should be only from PostgreSQL 13. For 9.6 ~ 12, IMHO it would be better to tweak the existing documentation to somehow mention that "default roles" should be thought of as "prefined roles", and note they will be called this from Pg13. Regards Ian Barwick -- Ian Barwick https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:23:48PM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote: > > I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere > > should be Postgresql's own documentation. > > Indeed, however it's important that the PostgreSQL documentation remains > stable for released versions. > > As-is, the current patch set would result in the term "default role(s)" > disappearing from the documentation in the next minor release, which is > bound to cause confusion for anyone searching the documentation for the > term they're familiar with (unless they happen to be reading this thread > or following the git commit log). Cue cries of "OMG Postgres removed a > feature in a minor release!!!?!!". > > And as Stephen mentions, it will break a lot of secondary documentation - > not just blogs but things like internal training materials etc. > > If this change is made (which I'm personally not against), then it should be > only from PostgreSQL 13. For 9.6 ~ 12, IMHO it would be better to tweak the > existing documentation to somehow mention that "default roles" should be > thought of as "prefined roles", and note they will be called this from Pg13. Usually when I apply "wording" doc patches to head only, someone complains that it should be backpatched, so I did that in this case. If we want to change that idea, we need to agree on the criteria. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 16:03, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:23:48PM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:
> > I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere
> > should be Postgresql's own documentation.
>
> Indeed, however it's important that the PostgreSQL documentation remains
> stable for released versions.
>
> As-is, the current patch set would result in the term "default role(s)"
> disappearing from the documentation in the next minor release, which is
> bound to cause confusion for anyone searching the documentation for the
> term they're familiar with (unless they happen to be reading this thread
> or following the git commit log). Cue cries of "OMG Postgres removed a
> feature in a minor release!!!?!!".
>
> And as Stephen mentions, it will break a lot of secondary documentation -
> not just blogs but things like internal training materials etc.
>
> If this change is made (which I'm personally not against), then it should be
> only from PostgreSQL 13. For 9.6 ~ 12, IMHO it would be better to tweak the
> existing documentation to somehow mention that "default roles" should be
> thought of as "prefined roles", and note they will be called this from Pg13.
Usually when I apply "wording" doc patches to head only, someone
complains that it should be backpatched, so I did that in this case. If
we want to change that idea, we need to agree on the criteria.
True, but it's not a wording patch, you're entirely renaming a feature.
I agree with the change of default to predefined, but it shouldn't be backpatched.
There should be a comment in there that it was previously known as "default roles", with indexed terms for both.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 06:45:16PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 16:03, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Usually when I apply "wording" doc patches to head only, someone > complains that it should be backpatched, so I did that in this case. If > we want to change that idea, we need to agree on the criteria. > > True, but it's not a wording patch, you're entirely renaming a feature. > > I agree with the change of default to predefined, but it shouldn't be > backpatched. > > There should be a comment in there that it was previously known as "default > roles", with indexed terms for both. Well, I am renaming the documentation label for the feature. Is that different than wording? I guess I can see that. If everyone agrees I can revert the backpatch, but I don't want to do that if other people are going to say this should be backpatched. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On Mon, 2020-01-20 at 17:13 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Well, I am renaming the documentation label for the feature. Is that > different than wording? I guess I can see that. If everyone agrees I > can revert the backpatch, but I don't want to do that if other people > are going to say this should be backpatched. I for one think that it should be backpatched, as long as the old link keeps working. Yours, Laurenz Albe
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:06:43AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-01-20 at 17:13 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Well, I am renaming the documentation label for the feature. Is that
> > different than wording? I guess I can see that. If everyone agrees I
> > can revert the backpatch, but I don't want to do that if other people
> > are going to say this should be backpatched.
>
> I for one think that it should be backpatched, as long as the
> old link keeps working.
I looked at that option. If the section was a hash reference,
"#section_name", we could just add another hash, but in this case the
section name is part of the file name:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html
We can make that work in a backward-compatible way by changing the
displayed section title, but not the file name. I am not sure if that
would confuse people though. We could also add a redirect at the web
server level, but then you have to start to wonder whether the entire
rename clarification is worth it for back branches.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > I looked at that option. If the section was a hash reference, > "#section_name", we could just add another hash, but in this case the > section name is part of the file name: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html Yeah, <sect1> IDs propagate into HTML page names. > We can make that work in a backward-compatible way by changing the > displayed section title, but not the file name. I am not sure if that > would confuse people though. I think that's a really bad idea. > We could also add a redirect at the web > server level, but then you have to start to wonder whether the entire > rename clarification is worth it for back branches. Well, this is a question for the www list not here. It might be a lot easier for them to support a redirect that works the same across all branches ... or then again, maybe not. But we have to have a redirect, else external links pointing at this page will be broken. We have done page renames with redirects in the past, if memory serves, so it's possible. But I don't know details. regards, tom lane
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:23:48PM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote: > On 2020/01/19 12:56, R Ransbottom wrote: > > I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere > Indeed, however it's important that the PostgreSQL documentation remains > stable for released versions. > As-is, the current patch set would result in the term "default role(s)" > disappearing from the documentation in the next minor release, which is > bound to cause confusion for anyone searching the documentation for the > term they're familiar with (unless they happen to be reading this thread > or following the git commit log). Cue cries of "OMG Postgres removed a > feature in a minor release!!!?!!". > And as Stephen mentions, it will break a lot of secondary documentation - > not just blogs but things like internal training materials etc. > If this change is made (which I'm personally not against), then it should be > only from PostgreSQL 13. For 9.6 ~ 12, IMHO it would be better to tweak the > existing documentation to somehow mention that "default roles" should be > thought of as "prefined roles", and note they will be called this from Pg13. Ian, agreed modulo 13. The current section(s) could forward readers to a revised section. The DEFAULT_ROLE_* stuff could carry two names to allow a comprehensive fix in 12.X. That could allow the deprecation and misinformation to end one EoL sooner. Thanks all. Rob
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 07:12:08PM -0500, R Ransbottom wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:23:48PM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote: > > On 2020/01/19 12:56, R Ransbottom wrote: > > > > I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere > > > Indeed, however it's important that the PostgreSQL documentation remains > > stable for released versions. > > > As-is, the current patch set would result in the term "default role(s)" > > disappearing from the documentation in the next minor release, which is > > bound to cause confusion for anyone searching the documentation for the > > term they're familiar with (unless they happen to be reading this thread > > or following the git commit log). Cue cries of "OMG Postgres removed a > > feature in a minor release!!!?!!". > > > And as Stephen mentions, it will break a lot of secondary documentation - > > not just blogs but things like internal training materials etc. > > > If this change is made (which I'm personally not against), then it should be > > only from PostgreSQL 13. For 9.6 ~ 12, IMHO it would be better to tweak the > > existing documentation to somehow mention that "default roles" should be > > thought of as "prefined roles", and note they will be called this from Pg13. > > Ian, agreed modulo 13. > > The current section(s) could forward readers to a revised section. The > DEFAULT_ROLE_* stuff could carry two names to allow a comprehensive fix > in 12.X. That could allow the deprecation and misinformation to end one > EoL sooner. With minor releases coming next week, and no movement on doing web redirects, and no clarity on what this is missing even in master, I will revert this patch in all branches soon. I think everyone agrees the new documentation title is better, but we don't want to break things or add inconsistency to do it. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 2/3/20 3:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 07:12:08PM -0500, R Ransbottom wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:23:48PM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote: >>> On 2020/01/19 12:56, R Ransbottom wrote: >> >>>> I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere >> >>> Indeed, however it's important that the PostgreSQL documentation remains >>> stable for released versions. >> >>> As-is, the current patch set would result in the term "default role(s)" >>> disappearing from the documentation in the next minor release, which is >>> bound to cause confusion for anyone searching the documentation for the >>> term they're familiar with (unless they happen to be reading this thread >>> or following the git commit log). Cue cries of "OMG Postgres removed a >>> feature in a minor release!!!?!!". >> >>> And as Stephen mentions, it will break a lot of secondary documentation - >>> not just blogs but things like internal training materials etc. >> >>> If this change is made (which I'm personally not against), then it should be >>> only from PostgreSQL 13. For 9.6 ~ 12, IMHO it would be better to tweak the >>> existing documentation to somehow mention that "default roles" should be >>> thought of as "prefined roles", and note they will be called this from Pg13. >> >> Ian, agreed modulo 13. >> >> The current section(s) could forward readers to a revised section. The >> DEFAULT_ROLE_* stuff could carry two names to allow a comprehensive fix >> in 12.X. That could allow the deprecation and misinformation to end one >> EoL sooner. > > With minor releases coming next week, and no movement on doing web > redirects, and no clarity on what this is missing even in master, I will > revert this patch in all branches soon. I think everyone agrees the new > documentation title is better, but we don't want to break things or add > inconsistency to do it. Sorry, I missed the original comment on the "web redirects" So, if there was something done to redirect people from specific deprecated documentation pages historically, it was before my time. Most of the redirects have been as general purposes ones (e.g. /docs/12), the rules we put in for getting rid of "static", and the release notes, which still receives some negative feedback towards it for different reasons (though I think overall the effort was well-received). Anyway, if we had a redirect in place, I'd want us to do it well. I don't know if it's possible...but if we were able to make a change in the doc source to say "this page is now this page" either as a standalone page, or generated a HTML page that automatically redirects, that may solve the issue. Or if we can have a "ghost page" available with the old link, perhaps we can put something into pgweb to automatically redirect to the new page. Other than that, the only quick solution I see is to hardcode it, which I'm not a fan of. So from a pgweb standpoint, the safe thing would be to do nothing with the URL. If you could keep the URL but change the page title, perhaps that would suffice? Jonathan
Attachment
On 2020-Feb-03, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > So, if there was something done to redirect people from specific > deprecated documentation pages historically, it was before my time. Most > of the redirects have been as general purposes ones (e.g. /docs/12), the > rules we put in for getting rid of "static", and the release notes, > which still receives some negative feedback towards it for different > reasons (though I think overall the effort was well-received). Anyway, > if we had a redirect in place, I'd want us to do it well. I +1 changing the title and +1 having the redirect. That said, I think people landing in a page titled "predefined roles" when they're looking for a page titled "default roles" would be quite confused for a while and perhaps continue to search for the page they think they're looking for. (I know, it has happened to me.) I suggest we add a very short paragraph --maybe a <note>-- to the effect that feature-X used to be called feature-Y, immediately following the section title. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:59 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote: > > On 2/3/20 3:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 07:12:08PM -0500, R Ransbottom wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:23:48PM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote: > >>> On 2020/01/19 12:56, R Ransbottom wrote: > >> > >>>> I would hope to find correct documentation somewhere--that somewhere > >> > >>> Indeed, however it's important that the PostgreSQL documentation remains > >>> stable for released versions. > >> > >>> As-is, the current patch set would result in the term "default role(s)" > >>> disappearing from the documentation in the next minor release, which is > >>> bound to cause confusion for anyone searching the documentation for the > >>> term they're familiar with (unless they happen to be reading this thread > >>> or following the git commit log). Cue cries of "OMG Postgres removed a > >>> feature in a minor release!!!?!!". > >> > >>> And as Stephen mentions, it will break a lot of secondary documentation - > >>> not just blogs but things like internal training materials etc. > >> > >>> If this change is made (which I'm personally not against), then it should be > >>> only from PostgreSQL 13. For 9.6 ~ 12, IMHO it would be better to tweak the > >>> existing documentation to somehow mention that "default roles" should be > >>> thought of as "prefined roles", and note they will be called this from Pg13. > >> > >> Ian, agreed modulo 13. > >> > >> The current section(s) could forward readers to a revised section. The > >> DEFAULT_ROLE_* stuff could carry two names to allow a comprehensive fix > >> in 12.X. That could allow the deprecation and misinformation to end one > >> EoL sooner. > > > > With minor releases coming next week, and no movement on doing web > > redirects, and no clarity on what this is missing even in master, I will > > revert this patch in all branches soon. I think everyone agrees the new > > documentation title is better, but we don't want to break things or add > > inconsistency to do it. > > Sorry, I missed the original comment on the "web redirects" Same here. It was buried a little too deep in an existing therad. > > So, if there was something done to redirect people from specific > deprecated documentation pages historically, it was before my time. Most > of the redirects have been as general purposes ones (e.g. /docs/12), the > rules we put in for getting rid of "static", and the release notes, > which still receives some negative feedback towards it for different > reasons (though I think overall the effort was well-received). Anyway, > if we had a redirect in place, I'd want us to do it well. We have something close to it in commit 496416ceda9c1015d9e7a6ef4b4fb18dae8a8d4e. But that doesn't actually generate redirects when requests are coming in from the outside -- it just makes sure our *internal* links can survive the rename of a file between branches. So it may not be exactly what's being looked for here, but it might be a starting point. Probably the same underlying mapping table could be used, but I haven't investigated that closely enough to say if it's doable at this point, just that it's a starting point. Using this feature to handle the rename of a file *between* major versions, thus leaving the changes in master, should be safe (as long as we add an entry to that table in pgweb). As for back branches, I think we have to say that it's too close to the minor release to safely have something done in pgweb before then. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Greetings, * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2020-Feb-03, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > > > So, if there was something done to redirect people from specific > > deprecated documentation pages historically, it was before my time. Most > > of the redirects have been as general purposes ones (e.g. /docs/12), the > > rules we put in for getting rid of "static", and the release notes, > > which still receives some negative feedback towards it for different > > reasons (though I think overall the effort was well-received). Anyway, > > if we had a redirect in place, I'd want us to do it well. > > I +1 changing the title and +1 having the redirect. That said, I think > people landing in a page titled "predefined roles" when they're looking > for a page titled "default roles" would be quite confused for a while > and perhaps continue to search for the page they think they're looking > for. (I know, it has happened to me.) I suggest we add a very short > paragraph --maybe a <note>-- to the effect that feature-X used to be > called feature-Y, immediately following the section title. I'm a bit confused as it sounded like having the redirect wouldn't be easy to do.. I also agree that keeping the URL the same as today but changing that URL to be talking about 'predefined roles' would be quite confusing. Having some kind of landing page with the existing URL that had a link for people to click on to get to the new URL seems like it would possibly work. I'd be happier with having that done in master and keeping the back-branches as-is, since I don't really like the idea that we're retroactively renaming a feature in our existing releases. That said, if we at least have the landing page then at least people will be less likely to be confused. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment
On 2/4/20 3:34 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:59 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote: >> So, if there was something done to redirect people from specific >> deprecated documentation pages historically, it was before my time. Most >> of the redirects have been as general purposes ones (e.g. /docs/12), the >> rules we put in for getting rid of "static", and the release notes, >> which still receives some negative feedback towards it for different >> reasons (though I think overall the effort was well-received). Anyway, >> if we had a redirect in place, I'd want us to do it well. > > We have something close to it in commit > 496416ceda9c1015d9e7a6ef4b4fb18dae8a8d4e. But that doesn't actually > generate redirects when requests are coming in from the outside -- it > just makes sure our *internal* links can survive the rename of a file > between branches. Ah cool, didn't realize we had this feature :) > So it may not be exactly what's being looked for here, but it might be > a starting point. Probably the same underlying mapping table could be > used, but I haven't investigated that closely enough to say if it's > doable at this point, just that it's a starting point. Yeah. It could be as simple as having a flag on it to say it should redirect if the old file (presumably "file2" in the model) is hit. I'm saying this without diving into the mechanics of the code. > Using this feature to handle the rename of a file *between* major > versions, thus leaving the changes in master, should be safe (as long > as we add an entry to that table in pgweb). > > As for back branches, I think we have to say that it's too close to > the minor release to safely have something done in pgweb before then. This part I agree on, but let's sync offline to see if there is something within reason, with a preference to *not* rush if we're worried about breaking something right before release. Jonathan
Attachment
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:31:19AM -0500, Jonathan Katz wrote: > > Using this feature to handle the rename of a file *between* major > > versions, thus leaving the changes in master, should be safe (as long > > as we add an entry to that table in pgweb). > > > > As for back branches, I think we have to say that it's too close to > > the minor release to safely have something done in pgweb before then. > > This part I agree on, but let's sync offline to see if there is > something within reason, with a preference to *not* rush if we're > worried about breaking something right before release. Folks, is it Thursday. Can we revert this and return to it when we are not rushed? Alternatively, can someone who controls all the moving parts, like redirects and Stephen's patch additions take ownership of this issue, with authority to revert the patch if things are too close? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 2/6/20 12:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:31:19AM -0500, Jonathan Katz wrote: >>> Using this feature to handle the rename of a file *between* major >>> versions, thus leaving the changes in master, should be safe (as long >>> as we add an entry to that table in pgweb). >>> >>> As for back branches, I think we have to say that it's too close to >>> the minor release to safely have something done in pgweb before then. >> >> This part I agree on, but let's sync offline to see if there is >> something within reason, with a preference to *not* rush if we're >> worried about breaking something right before release. > > Folks, is it Thursday. Can we revert this and return to it when we are > not rushed? Alternatively, can someone who controls all the moving > parts, like redirects and Stephen's patch additions take ownership of > this issue, with authority to revert the patch if things are too close? Magnus and I briefly discussed what it would take, but the probability of having the redirects ready on pgweb before the release is slim-to-none, as we'd like to thoroughly test. We can start experimenting with it now, and commit a fix after the release. I don't have the power to revert changes directly to the documentation in core, so I cannot take ownership of that part. However, I am happy to own the completion of the redirect feature. Thanks, Jonathan
Attachment
Greetings, * Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz@postgresql.org) wrote: > On 2/6/20 12:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:31:19AM -0500, Jonathan Katz wrote: > >>> Using this feature to handle the rename of a file *between* major > >>> versions, thus leaving the changes in master, should be safe (as long > >>> as we add an entry to that table in pgweb). > >>> > >>> As for back branches, I think we have to say that it's too close to > >>> the minor release to safely have something done in pgweb before then. > >> > >> This part I agree on, but let's sync offline to see if there is > >> something within reason, with a preference to *not* rush if we're > >> worried about breaking something right before release. > > > > Folks, is it Thursday. Can we revert this and return to it when we are > > not rushed? Alternatively, can someone who controls all the moving > > parts, like redirects and Stephen's patch additions take ownership of > > this issue, with authority to revert the patch if things are too close? > > Magnus and I briefly discussed what it would take, but the probability > of having the redirects ready on pgweb before the release is > slim-to-none, as we'd like to thoroughly test. > > We can start experimenting with it now, and commit a fix after the release. > > I don't have the power to revert changes directly to the documentation > in core, so I cannot take ownership of that part. However, I am happy to > own the completion of the redirect feature. I can own the core bits, since you've offered to take on the web pieces. :) Given the discussion, barring objections, I'll revert the changes tomorrow and then work with Jonathan and Magnus to try and get the website redirect stuff working so that we can make this change in a future release. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:05:04AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz@postgresql.org) wrote: > > I don't have the power to revert changes directly to the documentation > > in core, so I cannot take ownership of that part. However, I am happy to > > own the completion of the redirect feature. > > I can own the core bits, since you've offered to take on the web pieces. > :) > > Given the discussion, barring objections, I'll revert the changes > tomorrow and then work with Jonathan and Magnus to try and get the > website redirect stuff working so that we can make this change in a > future release. OK, thanks everyone. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz@postgresql.org) wrote:
>> On 2/6/20 12:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Folks, is it Thursday. Can we revert this and return to it when we are
>>> not rushed? Alternatively, can someone who controls all the moving
>>> parts, like redirects and Stephen's patch additions take ownership of
>>> this issue, with authority to revert the patch if things are too close?
>> Magnus and I briefly discussed what it would take, but the probability
>> of having the redirects ready on pgweb before the release is
>> slim-to-none, as we'd like to thoroughly test.
> Given the discussion, barring objections, I'll revert the changes
> tomorrow and then work with Jonathan and Magnus to try and get the
> website redirect stuff working so that we can make this change in a
> future release.
It's Sunday afternoon, and nothing has happened, so I took it on
myself to revert this.
regards, tom lane
Greetings,
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 14:24 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz@postgresql.org) wrote:
>> On 2/6/20 12:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Folks, is it Thursday. Can we revert this and return to it when we are
>>> not rushed? Alternatively, can someone who controls all the moving
>>> parts, like redirects and Stephen's patch additions take ownership of
>>> this issue, with authority to revert the patch if things are too close?
>> Magnus and I briefly discussed what it would take, but the probability
>> of having the redirects ready on pgweb before the release is
>> slim-to-none, as we'd like to thoroughly test.
> Given the discussion, barring objections, I'll revert the changes
> tomorrow and then work with Jonathan and Magnus to try and get the
> website redirect stuff working so that we can make this change in a
> future release.
It's Sunday afternoon, and nothing has happened, so I took it on
myself to revert this.
Ah, thanks, Friday got away from me and it’s been a busy weekend, I had figured on tonight but glad you took care of it.
Thanks again,
Stephen
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:59:09AM -0500, Jonathan Katz wrote: > On 2/6/20 12:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:31:19AM -0500, Jonathan Katz wrote: > >>> Using this feature to handle the rename of a file *between* major > >>> versions, thus leaving the changes in master, should be safe (as long > >>> as we add an entry to that table in pgweb). > >>> > >>> As for back branches, I think we have to say that it's too close to > >>> the minor release to safely have something done in pgweb before then. > >> > >> This part I agree on, but let's sync offline to see if there is > >> something within reason, with a preference to *not* rush if we're > >> worried about breaking something right before release. > > > > Folks, is it Thursday. Can we revert this and return to it when we are > > not rushed? Alternatively, can someone who controls all the moving > > parts, like redirects and Stephen's patch additions take ownership of > > this issue, with authority to revert the patch if things are too close? > > Magnus and I briefly discussed what it would take, but the probability > of having the redirects ready on pgweb before the release is > slim-to-none, as we'd like to thoroughly test. > > We can start experimenting with it now, and commit a fix after the release. > > I don't have the power to revert changes directly to the documentation > in core, so I cannot take ownership of that part. However, I am happy to > own the completion of the redirect feature. Jonathan, Stephen, with the minor release done, can we focus on adding the URL redirect and completing the patch to rename this feature in the docs? Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 4/9/20 4:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:59:09AM -0500, Jonathan Katz wrote: >> On 2/6/20 12:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:31:19AM -0500, Jonathan Katz wrote: >>>>> Using this feature to handle the rename of a file *between* major >>>>> versions, thus leaving the changes in master, should be safe (as long >>>>> as we add an entry to that table in pgweb). >>>>> >>>>> As for back branches, I think we have to say that it's too close to >>>>> the minor release to safely have something done in pgweb before then. >>>> >>>> This part I agree on, but let's sync offline to see if there is >>>> something within reason, with a preference to *not* rush if we're >>>> worried about breaking something right before release. >>> >>> Folks, is it Thursday. Can we revert this and return to it when we are >>> not rushed? Alternatively, can someone who controls all the moving >>> parts, like redirects and Stephen's patch additions take ownership of >>> this issue, with authority to revert the patch if things are too close? >> >> Magnus and I briefly discussed what it would take, but the probability >> of having the redirects ready on pgweb before the release is >> slim-to-none, as we'd like to thoroughly test. >> >> We can start experimenting with it now, and commit a fix after the release. >> >> I don't have the power to revert changes directly to the documentation >> in core, so I cannot take ownership of that part. However, I am happy to >> own the completion of the redirect feature. > > Jonathan, Stephen, with the minor release done, can we focus on adding > the URL redirect and completing the patch to rename this feature in the > docs? Thanks. Yes, I have a prototype for this ready, which I had scrambled together before the release. I am happy to make it committable in the coming days. Jonathan
Attachment
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 08:47:56PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote: > On 4/9/20 4:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Jonathan, Stephen, with the minor release done, can we focus on adding > > the URL redirect and completing the patch to rename this feature in the > > docs? Thanks. > > Yes, I have a prototype for this ready, which I had scrambled together > before the release. I am happy to make it committable in the coming days. Thanks. Once that is done Stephen can apply my patch with his additions. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 4/9/20 11:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 08:47:56PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote: >> On 4/9/20 4:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> Jonathan, Stephen, with the minor release done, can we focus on adding >>> the URL redirect and completing the patch to rename this feature in the >>> docs? Thanks. >> >> Yes, I have a prototype for this ready, which I had scrambled together >> before the release. I am happy to make it committable in the coming days. > > Thanks. Once that is done Stephen can apply my patch with his > additions. Please see attached patch for pgweb that allows for the documentation to be redirected from a page that is removed to a newer page. The way it works: - Checks to see if a page is found. If it is, great! - Now if a page 404s, we first check to see if there is a forwarding address, i.e. the new page. If it is, we issue a 301 (permanent redirecTt). - If it's still not found, we abort. I believe this gives us the desired behavior. Thoughts on the patch? Thanks, Jonathan
Attachment
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:38 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> wrote:
On 4/9/20 11:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 08:47:56PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote:
>> On 4/9/20 4:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Jonathan, Stephen, with the minor release done, can we focus on adding
>>> the URL redirect and completing the patch to rename this feature in the
>>> docs? Thanks.
>>
>> Yes, I have a prototype for this ready, which I had scrambled together
>> before the release. I am happy to make it committable in the coming days.
>
> Thanks. Once that is done Stephen can apply my patch with his
> additions.
Please see attached patch for pgweb that allows for the documentation to
be redirected from a page that is removed to a newer page. The way it works:
- Checks to see if a page is found. If it is, great!
- Now if a page 404s, we first check to see if there is a forwarding
address, i.e. the new page. If it is, we issue a 301 (permanent redirecTt).
- If it's still not found, we abort.
I believe this gives us the desired behavior.
Thoughts on the patch?
Looks good to me. Go for it.
//Magnus
Greetings, * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:38 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org> > wrote: > > > On 4/9/20 11:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 08:47:56PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote: > > >> On 4/9/20 4:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >>> Jonathan, Stephen, with the minor release done, can we focus on adding > > >>> the URL redirect and completing the patch to rename this feature in the > > >>> docs? Thanks. > > >> > > >> Yes, I have a prototype for this ready, which I had scrambled together > > >> before the release. I am happy to make it committable in the coming > > days. > > > > > > Thanks. Once that is done Stephen can apply my patch with his > > > additions. > > > > Please see attached patch for pgweb that allows for the documentation to > > be redirected from a page that is removed to a newer page. The way it > > works: > > > > - Checks to see if a page is found. If it is, great! > > - Now if a page 404s, we first check to see if there is a forwarding > > address, i.e. the new page. If it is, we issue a 301 (permanent redirecTt). > > - If it's still not found, we abort. > > > > I believe this gives us the desired behavior. > > > > Thoughts on the patch? > > Looks good to me. Go for it. What's the plan for how to maintain it going forward? Just email -docs and ask someone to perform the update whenever a release is going out..? Or do we have some kind of better process in mind? Thanks! Stephen
Attachment
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 8:20 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Greetings,
* Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:38 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 4/9/20 11:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 08:47:56PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote:
> > >> On 4/9/20 4:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >>> Jonathan, Stephen, with the minor release done, can we focus on adding
> > >>> the URL redirect and completing the patch to rename this feature in the
> > >>> docs? Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, I have a prototype for this ready, which I had scrambled together
> > >> before the release. I am happy to make it committable in the coming
> > days.
> > >
> > > Thanks. Once that is done Stephen can apply my patch with his
> > > additions.
> >
> > Please see attached patch for pgweb that allows for the documentation to
> > be redirected from a page that is removed to a newer page. The way it
> > works:
> >
> > - Checks to see if a page is found. If it is, great!
> > - Now if a page 404s, we first check to see if there is a forwarding
> > address, i.e. the new page. If it is, we issue a 301 (permanent redirecTt).
> > - If it's still not found, we abort.
> >
> > I believe this gives us the desired behavior.
> >
> > Thoughts on the patch?
>
> Looks good to me. Go for it.
What's the plan for how to maintain it going forward? Just email -docs
and ask someone to perform the update whenever a release is going out..?
Or do we have some kind of better process in mind?
GIven how seldom this happens, I think that's perfectly fine. Same as we already do with the page aliases.
//Magnus
On 4/28/20 2:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:38 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org > <mailto:jkatz@postgresql.org>> wrote: > > On 4/9/20 11:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 08:47:56PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote: > >> On 4/9/20 4:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> Jonathan, Stephen, with the minor release done, can we focus on > adding > >>> the URL redirect and completing the patch to rename this feature > in the > >>> docs? Thanks. > >> > >> Yes, I have a prototype for this ready, which I had scrambled > together > >> before the release. I am happy to make it committable in the > coming days. > > > > Thanks. Once that is done Stephen can apply my patch with his > > additions. > > Please see attached patch for pgweb that allows for the documentation to > be redirected from a page that is removed to a newer page. The way > it works: > > - Checks to see if a page is found. If it is, great! > - Now if a page 404s, we first check to see if there is a forwarding > address, i.e. the new page. If it is, we issue a 301 (permanent > redirecTt). > - If it's still not found, we abort. > > I believe this gives us the desired behavior. > > Thoughts on the patch? > > > Looks good to me. Go for it. This is deployed. Ready for the patch in core. Thanks! Jonathan
Attachment
On 2020-04-10 05:45, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 08:47:56PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote: >> On 4/9/20 4:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> Jonathan, Stephen, with the minor release done, can we focus on adding >>> the URL redirect and completing the patch to rename this feature in the >>> docs? Thanks. >> >> Yes, I have a prototype for this ready, which I had scrambled together >> before the release. I am happy to make it committable in the coming days. > > Thanks. Once that is done Stephen can apply my patch with his > additions. I think we should leave the backbranches alone. The feature shipped with the name as it did, and users know it as such. If we start retroactively renaming all functionality when we change our mind, it will create complete madness. New ideas belong into the master branch. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:02:25PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote: > On 4/28/20 2:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:38 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org > > <mailto:jkatz@postgresql.org>> wrote: > > > > On 4/9/20 11:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 08:47:56PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote: > > >> On 4/9/20 4:57 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >>> Jonathan, Stephen, with the minor release done, can we focus on > > adding > > >>> the URL redirect and completing the patch to rename this feature > > in the > > >>> docs? Thanks. > > >> > > >> Yes, I have a prototype for this ready, which I had scrambled > > together > > >> before the release. I am happy to make it committable in the > > coming days. > > > > > > Thanks. Once that is done Stephen can apply my patch with his > > > additions. > > > > Please see attached patch for pgweb that allows for the documentation to > > be redirected from a page that is removed to a newer page. The way > > it works: > > > > - Checks to see if a page is found. If it is, great! > > - Now if a page 404s, we first check to see if there is a forwarding > > address, i.e. the new page. If it is, we issue a 301 (permanent > > redirecTt). > > - If it's still not found, we abort. > > > > I believe this gives us the desired behavior. > > > > Thoughts on the patch? > > > > > > Looks good to me. Go for it. > > This is deployed. Ready for the patch in core. OK, Stephen, I believe you have a more comprehensive patch to make this change. When can you complete it? The above email is from April. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> OK, Stephen, I believe you have a more comprehensive patch to make this
> change. When can you complete it? The above email is from April.
Having gone back through this thread (again) to figure out where we are
on this, and chatting with Jonathan about the options that are available
through the web system, and trying to sort out my own feelings on what
makes the most sense here, I'd like to bring up a few points and a
proposal regarding the rename:
- General agreement that 'predefined' is better than 'default'
- Unclear on back-patching:
Voices in favor: Rob, Laurenz, Bruce
Voices against: Ian, Simon, Peter, Stephen
Having understood now a bit better what is possible with the web system,
many thanks to Jonathan for chatting with me about it, I'll try to
explain here what the options are:
- Change the back-branches and use the new feature ("doc page
redirects") to redirect old links to default-roles to
predefined-roles.
- Change the feature's name in v14, but create a "doc page alias" to
allow users viewing v13's "default roles" to see a v14 link which
would take them to "predefined roles".
I'll note that we've got a number of examples of "doc page aliases"
being used to handle name changes:
catalog-pg-replication-slots.html <-> view-pg-replication-slots.html
pgxlogdump.html <-> pgwaldump.html
app-pgresetxlog.html <-> app-pgresetwal.html
legalnotice.html <-> LEGALNOTICE.html
app-pgreceivexlog.html <-> app-pgreceivewal.html
I've also been thinking about the code change impact from this, as I do
think we should have the code and the documentation and general feature
naming be consistent, but that implies changing things like
DEFAULT_ROLE_MONITOR to be PREDEFINED_ROLE_MONITOR, potentially breaking
compilation of extensions that use those #define's (such as even our own
extensions like file_fdw do) in a minor version update, which doesn't
seem terribly nice to do.
Therefore, on the whole, the proposal that I would put out there is:
- Rename everything (code, docs, etc) to 'predefined roles' for v14+
- Update the documentation (only) in back-branches to mention that the
feature was renamed in v14 to 'predefined roles'
- Use the 'doc page alias' feature to make the documentation page for
'default roles' on the older versions link to 'predefined roles' in
the newer versions, and vice-versa
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachment
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 05:40:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Therefore, on the whole, the proposal that I would put out there is: > > - Rename everything (code, docs, etc) to 'predefined roles' for v14+ > - Update the documentation (only) in back-branches to mention that the > feature was renamed in v14 to 'predefined roles' > - Use the 'doc page alias' feature to make the documentation page for > 'default roles' on the older versions link to 'predefined roles' in > the newer versions, and vice-versa Sure, that works for me. If it was only docs, backpatch makes more sense, but once you showed the renaming in those other areas, master-only makes more sense. Thanks for working on this. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
Greetings, * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 05:40:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Therefore, on the whole, the proposal that I would put out there is: > > > > - Rename everything (code, docs, etc) to 'predefined roles' for v14+ > > - Update the documentation (only) in back-branches to mention that the > > feature was renamed in v14 to 'predefined roles' > > - Use the 'doc page alias' feature to make the documentation page for > > 'default roles' on the older versions link to 'predefined roles' in > > the newer versions, and vice-versa > > Sure, that works for me. If it was only docs, backpatch makes more > sense, but once you showed the renaming in those other areas, > master-only makes more sense. Thanks for working on this. I've written a patch to begin to make this change and sent it into -hackers for comments, thread is here: https://postgr.es/m/20201120211304.GG16415@tamriel.snowman.net Naturally, it won't make sense to make a change to the back branches until the change has been agreed to and committed for v14. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment
Greetings, * Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote: > * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 05:40:37PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > Therefore, on the whole, the proposal that I would put out there is: > > > > > > - Rename everything (code, docs, etc) to 'predefined roles' for v14+ > > > - Update the documentation (only) in back-branches to mention that the > > > feature was renamed in v14 to 'predefined roles' > > > - Use the 'doc page alias' feature to make the documentation page for > > > 'default roles' on the older versions link to 'predefined roles' in > > > the newer versions, and vice-versa > > > > Sure, that works for me. If it was only docs, backpatch makes more > > sense, but once you showed the renaming in those other areas, > > master-only makes more sense. Thanks for working on this. > > I've written a patch to begin to make this change and sent it into > -hackers for comments, thread is here: > > https://postgr.es/m/20201120211304.GG16415@tamriel.snowman.net Just to wrap this up- this change has now been committed for v14. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment
On 4/1/21 3:34 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote: >> I've written a patch to begin to make this change and sent it into >> -hackers for comments, thread is here: >> >> https://postgr.es/m/20201120211304.GG16415@tamriel.snowman.net > > Just to wrap this up- this change has now been committed for v14. Thanks Stephen! Do we have any additional follow up on the pgweb side? Thanks, Jonathan
Attachment
Greetings, * Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz@postgresql.org) wrote: > On 4/1/21 3:34 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote: > > >> I've written a patch to begin to make this change and sent it into > >> -hackers for comments, thread is here: > >> > >> https://postgr.es/m/20201120211304.GG16415@tamriel.snowman.net > > > > Just to wrap this up- this change has now been committed for v14. > > Thanks Stephen! Do we have any additional follow up on the pgweb side? Yes and no. :) Once the next set of minor releases is pushed out, I'll double-check that everything is working properly (the 'obsolete' pages should start showing up instead of the redirects, since we'll no longer be going through the "page not found" code path) and will then go remove the alias/redirects from the pages that no longer need them. Thanks! Stephen
Attachment
On 4/2/21 9:11 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz@postgresql.org) wrote: >> Thanks Stephen! Do we have any additional follow up on the pgweb side? > > Yes and no. :) > > Once the next set of minor releases is pushed out, I'll double-check > that everything is working properly (the 'obsolete' pages should start > showing up instead of the redirects, since we'll no longer be going > through the "page not found" code path) and will then go remove the > alias/redirects from the pages that no longer need them. Great -- thanks for confirming. Thanks, Jonathan