| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning |
| Date: | 2011-04-25 18:31:09 |
| Message-ID: | 18033.1303756269@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... There's a similar stanza for sequences, but that one uses
> ereport(WARNING...) rather than ereport(ERROR...). We could either
> remove that stanza entirely (making foreign tables consistent with
> views) or change ERROR to WARNING (making it consistent with
> sequences).
Well, the relevant point here is that there's little or no likelihood
that we'll ever care to support direct UPDATE on sequences. This is
exactly not the case for foreign tables. So I would argue that GRANT
should handle them like views; certainly not be even more strict than
it is for sequences.
IOW, yeah, let's drop these two checks.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-04-25 18:34:22 | Re: "stored procedures" |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-04-25 18:27:35 | Re: "stored procedures" |