From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, William ZHANG <uniware(at)zedware(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal for SYNONYMS |
Date: | 2006-03-09 18:07:15 |
Message-ID: | 20060309100242.W22711@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Jonah H. Harris (jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > On 3/9/06, William ZHANG <uniware(at)zedware(dot)org> wrote:
> > > Or should we let
> > > DROP TABLE foo CASCADE;
> > > to drop the SYNONYMS depended on the table?
> >
> > Yes, I don't see any reason not to allow a cascading table drop include
> > synonyms that reference them.
>
> Should a non-cascade drop fail or just implicitly drop the synonyms?
> I'm not sure which way I feel about this... Users with only 'select'
> permissions on a given object can't currently create objects which
> depend on that object (such that dropping the object would then require
> 'cascade'), can they?
I think a user can create a view to a table they only have select on right
now and that should prevent non-cascade drops as well.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-03-09 18:17:41 | Re: Proposal for SYNONYMS |
Previous Message | Volkan YAZICI | 2006-03-09 18:02:05 | Re: 8.2 hold queue [MB Chars' Case Conversion] |