Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error

>> While we don't _need_ it, it would make our system more consistent; we
>> have made similar changes for views in other areas.
>
> I'm not sure it'd make the system more consistent. Because the SQL
> standard says you use GRANT ON TABLE for a view. we'd have to always
> ensure that we accepted that; whereas in at least some other places
> we are trying to be picky about TABLE/VIEW/SEQUENCE actually matching
> the object type.
>
> Given the spec precedent, I'm inclined to leave it alone. It's not like
> there aren't plenty of other SQL quirks that surprise novices.

I fail to understand why it's advantageous to artificially create
surprising behavior. There are cases where PostgreSQL now accepts
either ALTER VIEW or ALTER TABLE where it previously accepted only the
latter, so the situation is hardly without precedent. I find it
exceedingly unlikely that anyone is relying on GRANT ON VIEW to NOT
work.

...Robert