| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 06:15:57 |
| Message-ID: | 26556.1136614557@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Should UPDATE also allow currval()? Your logic below seems to suggest
> that.
I thought about that, but there are a couple of reasons not to:
1. It'd be a change from the current behavior of UPDATE privilege.
2. If there's someone out there who really does want write-only
privileges for sequences, they'd be out in the cold.
I don't find either of these very compelling, but the case for changing
the behavior of UPDATE isn't strong either. I think backwards
compatibility should carry the day if there's not a strong argument
in favor of change.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-01-07 07:07:06 | Re: Warm-up cache may have its virtue |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-01-07 06:03:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2006-01-07 10:52:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-01-07 06:03:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |