| From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(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>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |
| Date: | 2006-01-07 10:52:41 |
| Message-ID: | e51f66da0601070252w5ac1fday6b4f434f643fee25@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On 1/7/06, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > The above table seem bit messy, but I see it as much easier to explain
> > to somebody.
>
> I am confused about your list above, so I can't see how that would be
> easy to explain.
Easy as in "use GRANT USAGE, forget about rest". You are confused
because you know the old way and look them together.
I would have liked to say "the rest are for fine-grained access control",
but with Tom's final proposal, the explanation would continue "SELECT,
UPDATE are for backwards compatibility".
Attached is a patch that fixes tablename->seqname and puts USAGE
as first in list to show it's the preferred way. I think it should
be mentioned somewhere explicitly, but I cant find proper place for
it. In the Compatibility section for GRANT?
--
marko
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| seqdocfix.diff | text/x-patch | 2.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-01-07 13:02:48 | CIDR/INET improvements |
| Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-01-07 08:02:57 | Re: Warm-up cache may have its virtue |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-01-07 13:02:48 | CIDR/INET improvements |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-07 06:15:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |