| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Piyush Newe <piyush(dot)newe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Repetition of warning message while REVOKE |
| Date: | 2010-03-06 23:13:31 |
| Message-ID: | 7273.1267917211@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> One thought is that the column cases should be phrased more like
>> no privileges could be revoked for column "foo" of table "bar"
> Looks like 'for column "foo" of relation "bar"' is more typical, so
> that's what I did in the attached patch. I also cleaned up a few other
> things I noticed in looking through the various messages/comments.
Applied, except I omitted the one comment change because it didn't seem
to me to clarify anything. Sequences are a subclass of relations, so
"table or sequence" makes sense to me while "relation or sequence"
doesn't.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-03-07 01:59:39 | Re: machine-readable pg_controldata? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-06 21:33:54 | Re: Explicit psqlrc |