Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error
Date: 2008-08-23 20:00:23
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Yes, I assumed we were following the recent work on ALTER TABLE/VIEW
> with GRANT/REVOKE.  Peter, Tom, how is GRANT/REVOKE different?

GRANT/REVOKE behavior is specified by the standard, whereas the stuff
we allow under ALTER VIEW is all an extension to the standard --- not
merely syntax-wise, but functionality.

A concrete reason not to do it is that if someone writes GRANT ON VIEW,
their code won't port to other DBs that are following the spec, and
it'll be only because we allowed non-spec syntactic sugar, not because
they're using functionality not covered by the spec.

We routinely complain about mysql inventing nonstandard ways to express
things that have perfectly good spec-compliant equivalents.  How would
this be different?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2008-08-23 20:23:59
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2008-08-23 19:50:08
Subject: Re: proposal sql: labeled function params

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Ivan Sergio BorgonovoDate: 2008-08-23 20:05:21
Subject: Re: psql vs. pgadmin3 was:can't get UPDATE ... RETURNING ... INTO ... to compile successfully
Previous:From: Garry SaddingtonDate: 2008-08-23 19:51:51
Subject: query takes a long time

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group