| From: | Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch for %Allow per-database permissions to be set |
| Date: | 2006-04-30 22:17:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1146435476.31253.15.camel@voyager.truesoftware.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 15:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Documentation added, patch attached and applied. Thanks.
>
> I just got around to reading this patch. Why is the syntax GRANT CONNECTION
> and not GRANT CONNECT? Privilege names are generally verbs not nouns.
> Unless someone can point to a good reason for CONNECTION, I'm going to
> change it.
The main reason for this was because, in the beginning when I was
gathering information for developing this patch, I read something about
not introducing a new reserved word. So I used CONNECTION as the first
relevant word I could find in the token list from gram.y. Later on we
did not discussed anything about the *CONNECT* or *CONNECTION
Regards,
Gevik.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-01 02:58:39 | Re: Patch for %Allow per-database permissions to be set via |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2006-04-30 20:24:02 | fori stmt with by keyword was:(Re: [HACKERS] for statement, adding a STEP clause?) |