| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |
| Date: | 2006-01-05 19:44:24 |
| Message-ID: | 200601051144.24905.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce, Tom,
> > The permissions for a sequence aren't the same as they are for a
> > table. We've sort of ignored the point to date, but if we're going to
> > add special syntax for granting on a sequence, I don't think we should
> > continue to ignore it.
>
> Uh, how are they different? You mean just UPDATE and none of the
> others do anything?
Yes, it would be nice to have real permissions for sequences, specifically
USE (which allows nextval() and currval()) and UPDATE (which would allow
setval() ). However, I don't know that the added functionality would
justify breaking backwards-compatibility.
Oh, and Bruce, I can't imagine needing specific relkind so I think that
part's fine.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-05 19:58:18 | Re: Improving N-Distinct estimation by ANALYZE |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-01-05 19:40:19 | Re: Improving N-Distinct estimation by ANALYZE |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2006-01-05 21:27:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-01-05 19:06:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |