Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2006-04-29 kell 19:41, kirjutas
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:54:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > In short, I think there's a reasonably good case to be made for losing the
> > hidden dependency and re-adopting the viewpoint that saying SERIAL is
> > *exactly* the same as making a sequence and then making a default
> > expression that uses the sequence. Nothing behind the curtain.
> > Comments, other opinions?
> I find it user-unfriendly that I must grant select/update to the
> SERIAL, separate than from the table. I don't really see anything
> friendly about treating the object as separate.
just define nextval() as SECURITY DEFINER
> I do see the benefits with regard to simplified implementation, and
> As a compromise, I could see either choice being correct. I don't
> see either direction as being both user friendly and simple.
You can be user friendly and simple only if the user wants to do simple
things, or if you can exactly predict what a user wants, else you have
to grant some power to the user, and that involves complexity or at
least a learning curve.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Hallgren||Date: 2006-04-30 10:50:23|
|Subject: Finding the correct type|
|Previous:||From: Thomas Hallgren||Date: 2006-04-30 10:29:08|
|Subject: Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?|