From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Copying Permissions |
Date: | 2016-11-10 14:36:32 |
Message-ID: | 20161110143632.GD13284@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > 3. The operation is judged to have succeeded if at least one permission is
> > granted, or NO grants failed (i.e. there was nothing to grant).
>
> Allow me to be skeptical. If a user types INSERT INTO blah VALUES
> (...), (...), (...) should we change the system to report success if
> at least 1 of the 3 rows got successfully inserted? I bet that
> wouldn't go over well.
To this point, we already do this for GRANT and REVOKE, so if this is
going to be based around those commands then it should perform in a
similar manner. Of course, that behavior is required for SQL spec and
as Tom points out that might be reason enough to avoid actually tying
this in with GRANT/REVOKE since we could end up in a tough spot if the
SQL committee decides to take a different direction than what we use (or
use the keywords we pick for something else).
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-11-10 14:40:01 | Re: proposal: psql \setfileref |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-10 14:27:40 | Re: Is user_catalog_table sensible for matviews? |