initdb username doc bug

On Saturday, January 6, 2024, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

This commit:

commit 910cab820d
Author: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Date: Fri Nov 18 11:59:26 2022 +0100

Add glossary entries related to superusers

Extracted from a more ambitious patch.

Author: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Discussion: /messages/by-id/CAKFQuwZC4K0XYBm0bwBMDOZySBqhO
SekDhLuaw4vPi+ozi8gqQ@mail.gmail.com

used this text for the --username option:

-U username
--username=username
Selects the user name of the bootstrap superuser. This defaults
to the name of the cluster owner.

This seems wrong since the cluster owner doesn't exist until the cluster
is created. The text exists in PG 16 and master. The attached patch
fixes this.

The glossary defines cluster owner as the pre-existing operating system
user. There may be an argument that installation user is a better term but
the existing choice isn’t wrong. If you are going to change it you need to
update the glossary as well. The description in initdb uses cluster owner
as well.

I agree we presently use a mix of set and specify in these definitions so
the word choice of selects is out-of-place.

David J.

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 08:11:14PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:

On Saturday, January 6, 2024, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

This commit:

        commit 910cab820d
        Author: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
        Date:   Fri Nov 18 11:59:26 2022 +0100

            Add glossary entries related to superusers

            Extracted from a more ambitious patch.

            Author: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
            Discussion: /messages/by-id/CAKFQuwZC4K0XYBm0bwBMDOZySBqhO
SekDhLuaw4vPi+ozi8gqQ@mail.gmail.com

used this text for the --username option:

       -U username
       --username=username
           Selects the user name of the bootstrap superuser. This defaults
           to the name of the cluster owner.

This seems wrong since the cluster owner doesn't exist until the cluster
is created.  The text exists in PG 16 and master.  The attached patch
fixes this.

The glossary defines cluster owner as the pre-existing operating system user. 

No, it does not.

There may be an argument that installation user is a better term but the
existing choice isn’t wrong.  If you are going to change it you need to update
the glossary as well.  The description in initdb uses cluster owner as well.

I agree we presently use a mix of set and specify in these definitions so the
word choice of selects is out-of-place.

The patch says:

	+  <glossentry id="glossary-cluster-owner">
	+   <glossterm>Cluster owner</glossterm>
	+   <glossdef>
	+    <para>
-->	+     The operating system user that owns the
-->	+     <glossterm linkend="glossary-data-directory">data directory</glossterm>
	+     and under which the <literal>postgres</literal> process is run.
	+     It is required that this user exist prior to creating a new
	+     <glossterm linkend="glossary-db-cluster">database cluster</glossterm>.
	+    </para>
	+    <para>
	+     On operating systems with a <literal>root</literal> user,
	+     said user is not allowed to be the cluster owner.
	+    </para>
	+   </glossdef>
	+  </glossentry>

How can you default to be the owner of something that doesn't exist before
it is created?

Also, the initdb code gets the default username from geteuid(), the
effective process owner; man geteuid says:

geteuid() returns the effective user ID of the calling process.

so it is not the owner of the data dirctory, but the installation user.

I am open to saying that it is the owner of the data directory but we
would then need to change initdb to do that, and we aren't going to
backpatch that.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.

On Saturday, January 6, 2024, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 08:11:14PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:

On Saturday, January 6, 2024, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

This commit:

commit 910cab820d
Author: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Date: Fri Nov 18 11:59:26 2022 +0100

Add glossary entries related to superusers

Extracted from a more ambitious patch.

Author: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/

CAKFQuwZC4K0XYBm0bwBMDOZySBqhO

SekDhLuaw4vPi+ozi8gqQ@mail.gmail.com

used this text for the --username option:

-U username
--username=username
Selects the user name of the bootstrap superuser. This

defaults

to the name of the cluster owner.

This seems wrong since the cluster owner doesn't exist until the

cluster

is created. The text exists in PG 16 and master. The attached patch
fixes this.

The glossary defines cluster owner as the pre-existing operating system

user.

No, it does not.

There may be an argument that installation user is a better term but the
existing choice isn’t wrong. If you are going to change it you need to

update

the glossary as well. The description in initdb uses cluster owner as

well.

I agree we presently use a mix of set and specify in these definitions

so the

word choice of selects is out-of-place.

The patch says:

+  <glossentry id="glossary-cluster-owner">
+   <glossterm>Cluster owner</glossterm>
+   <glossdef>
+    <para>
-->     +     The operating system user that owns the
-->     +     <glossterm linkend="glossary-data-directory">data
directory</glossterm>
+     and under which the <literal>postgres</literal> process is
run.
+     It is required that this user exist prior to creating a new
+     <glossterm linkend="glossary-db-cluster">database
cluster</glossterm>.
+    </para>
+    <para>
+     On operating systems with a <literal>root</literal> user,
+     said user is not allowed to be the cluster owner.
+    </para>
+   </glossdef>
+  </glossentry>

How can you default to be the owner of something that doesn't exist before
it is created?

Also, the initdb code gets the default username from geteuid(), the
effective process owner; man geteuid says:

geteuid() returns the effective user ID of the calling process.

so it is not the owner of the data dirctory, but the installation user.

I am open to saying that it is the owner of the data directory but we
would then need to change initdb to do that, and we aren't going to
backpatch that.

Ok, I see your point. Given that the installation users becomes the
cluster owner by virtue of doing the only job they have, running initdb,
defining both seemed excessive but it is indeed more precise. I would
probably avoid install user though because of the probable confusion with
the user that installed the distribution package as opposed to the one
initializing the cluster (we don’t call it installing a cluster).

So maybe a new defined term “cluster initializer”?

David J.

On Saturday, January 6, 2024, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, January 6, 2024, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

geteuid() returns the effective user ID of the calling process.

so it is not the owner of the data dirctory, but the installation user.

I am open to saying that it is the owner of the data directory but we
would then need to change initdb to do that, and we aren't going to
backpatch that.

So maybe a new defined term “cluster initializer”?

Or just the bit more verbose “user running the initdb command” and don’t
bother giving it a label, which is basically the approach used in the
description for initdb anyway.

David J.

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:

Or just the bit more verbose “user running the initdb command” and don’t
bother giving it a label, which is basically the approach used in the
description for initdb anyway.

Or if you want a few more words, "name of the operating-system user
running initdb". I don't like "installation user", that's just about
as vague as could be.

regards, tom lane

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 11:27:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:

Or just the bit more verbose “user running the initdb command” and don’t
bother giving it a label, which is basically the approach used in the
description for initdb anyway.

Or if you want a few more words, "name of the operating-system user
running initdb". I don't like "installation user", that's just about
as vague as could be.

Agreed, updated patch attached.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 2:26 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 11:27:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:

Or just the bit more verbose “user running the initdb command” and

don’t

bother giving it a label, which is basically the approach used in the
description for initdb anyway.

Or if you want a few more words, "name of the operating-system user
running initdb". I don't like "installation user", that's just about
as vague as could be.

Agreed, updated patch attached.

+1

Thanks!

David J.

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Agreed, updated patch attached.

WFM.

regards, tom lane

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 04:50:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Agreed, updated patch attached.

WFM.

Patch applied back to PG 16, which is where the erroneous text was
added.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.

On 2024-Jan-10, Bruce Momjian wrote:

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 04:50:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Agreed, updated patch attached.

WFM.

Patch applied back to PG 16, which is where the erroneous text was
added.

Thank you! It looks good to me too. Sorry I got a bit too late to this
thread.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
“Cuando no hay humildad las personas se degradan” (A. Christie)

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 06:05:17PM +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote:

On 2024-Jan-10, Bruce Momjian wrote:

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 04:50:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Agreed, updated patch attached.

WFM.

Patch applied back to PG 16, which is where the erroneous text was
added.

Thank you! It looks good to me too. Sorry I got a bit too late to this
thread.

Sure, no problem, we got it!

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.