From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
Subject: | Re: about truncate |
Date: | 2009-01-20 21:41:29 |
Message-ID: | 15502.1232487689@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The SQL standard uses a recursive-by-default language. For example, the
> rules for the DELETE command state:
Actually, I'm not convinced. Take a look at the SELECT WITH HIERARCHY
OPTION stuff in SQL99 and later, in particular this from SQL99
12.2 <grant privilege statement>:
7) Let SWH be the set of privilege descriptors in CPD whose action
is SELECT WITH HIERARCHY OPTION, and let ST be the set of
subtables of O, then for every grantee G in SWH and for every
table T in ST, the following <grant statement> is effectively
executed without further Access Rule checking:
GRANT SELECT ON T TO G GRANTED BY A
It's difficult to read that any other way than that privileges are *not*
auto-recursive, and they have chosen to spell "*" in GRANT as "WITH
HIERARCHY OPTION" (gackk).
On the other hand, it's hard to square that reading with the lack of any
UPDATE or DELETE WITH HIERARCHY OPTION syntax. What am I missing here?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-20 21:54:48 | Re: New pg_dump patch, --no-stats flag, disables sending to statistics collector |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2009-01-20 21:34:21 | Re: Visibility map and freezing |