Re: docs: note ownership requirement for refreshing materialized views
Dian Fay <dian.m.fay@gmail.com>
From: Dian Fay <dian.m.fay@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2018-08-16T01:44:46Z
Lists: 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
Commits
-
Mention ownership requirements for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW in docs
- b6c994af1f0d 9.3.25 landed
- 777192f0dd44 9.4.20 landed
- 82784f088986 9.5.15 landed
- 86e873c01650 9.6.11 landed
- 0dfaf8f763ae 10.6 landed
- b43cf1dcded9 11.0 landed
- ee8012481190 12.0 landed