Re: not clear what it means

[Bruce Momjian]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:10:25AM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> 
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/performance-tips.html
> Description:
> 
> Hi, here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/download/products/6-postgresql-extensions/
> In section about: pg_track_settings
> look for: that me must called
> I'm not one native speaker thus I'm sorry if I took your attention for
> nothing, but is this really a phrase? 
> Thanks

This requires a change to our website, so I am sending it to the www
email list.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  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 +

not clear what it means

[PG Doc comments form]

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/performance-tips.html
Description:

Hi, here:
https://www.postgresql.org/download/products/6-postgresql-extensions/
In section about: pg_track_settings
look for: that me must called
I'm not one native speaker thus I'm sorry if I took your attention for
nothing, but is this really a phrase? 
Thanks

Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles

[Bruce Momjian]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 06:45:16PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 16:03, Bruce Momjian  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  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 +

Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles

[Simon Riggs]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 16:03, Bruce Momjian  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.

-- 
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/

PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterprise

Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles

[Bruce Momjian]

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  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 +