On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Shigeru HANADA
<hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> In addition to the 2nd GRANT above, "GRANT SELECT (colour) ON stuff TO
> user_a" (omitting TABLE) will succeed too because parser assumes that
> the target object is a regular table if object type was TABLE or
> omitted. This inconsistent behavior would be an oversight and need to
> be fixed.

+1.

> How about to drop "GRANT xxx ON FOREIGN TABLE foo" syntax support and
> use "GRANT xxx ON [TABLE] foo" for foreign tables?  ISTM that "ON
> FOREIGN TABLE" specification is useless because possible privilege
> type would be same as TABLE.

-1.  We should be consistent about treating foreign tables as their
own object type - and the possible privilege types are NOT the same -
only SELECT is supported.

> Probabry we should mention in GRANT documents that ALL TABLES
> IN SCHEMA is considered to include foreign tables.

Or else change the behavior so that it doesn't, which would probably be my vote.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning at 2011-04-01 08:29:28 from Shigeru HANADA

Responses

• Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning at 2011-04-20 10:10:26 from Shigeru Hanada

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-04-14 18:45:57
	Subject: Re: Proposal for GSoC : ADJ dashboard (Administration related software)
Previous:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-04-14 18:40:52
	Subject: Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning