| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
| Date: | 2006-05-01 21:40:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20060501214051.GI97354@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:25:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc writes:
> > Ah. I was wondering about that. When I saw the first poster tag
> > 'SECURITY DEFINER' on the end of the expression I assumed it was
> > something that I didn't know you could do... :-)
>
> No, he was inventing syntax that doesn't exist.
Which begs the question, how hard would it be to add that syntax? I
suspect it would be useful in cases besides sequences, and certainly
seems to be a lot less of a hassle than having to wrap stuff in an extra
function just to get that capability...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lukas Smith | 2006-05-01 22:02:51 | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-01 21:36:48 | Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not? |