Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT

On 1/6/06, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 19:11:27 +0200,
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 1/6/06, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Considering there's no currval() without nextval(), what point
> > is disallowing currval() when user is able to call nextval()?
> >
> > I rather want to allow nextval/currval and disable setval as it
> > allows regular user to DoS the database.
>
> What I was thinking with this, is that you might allow someone the ability
> to insert records into a table which would make use of nextval, but not
> allow them to run nextval directly. But after inserting a record allow them
> to use currval to see what value was assigned.
> People could still mess with things by doing INSERTs and aborting the
> transaction, so this may not be the best example for why you would want this.

This is similar to Tom's scenario. I'm not against keeping them separate.

But my question is rather - is there any scenario where setval() should
go with nextval()?

It seems that their pairing is an accident and should be fixed.

--
marko