> tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> david.g.johnston@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> Yes, the description for --username probably should be modified to read: >> >> "Selects the user name of the cluster's bootstrap superuser." > > Yeah, perhaps. The term "bootstrap superuser" is reasonably well established by now --- I count half a dozen uses in our SGML docs and another dozen or so in the code --- and it's certainly more specific than "database superuser". We should probably create a glossary entry for it and then change all the uses of "database superuser" as appropriate. > > However ... it looks to me like some of those uses just mean to distinguish between Postgres-specific superuser-dom as opposed to whatever the term might mean out in the operating system. But I'm not sure that anybody really uses that term for an OS-level > concept on any popular OS, so it feels a bit pedantic as well as confusing. Should we leave those usages alone, or reduce them to just "superuser"? Thanks, Tom. I'd certainly appreciate an entry in "Appendix M. Glossary" for the term of art that I've been struggling to name. Until I hear what the experts decide, I'll use "catalog-owning role". Then I'll switch to the newly blessed term. I'm afraid that I didn't get your point in your last paragraph. The terms "within-cluster role" and "O/S user" seem to capture the distinction when the context doesn't make it clear. I aim never to use the term "user" for the within-cluster phenomenon. After all, an existing within-cluster role can flip between "with nologin" and "with login" at the drop of a hat of the guy "with createrole".
