| 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: | 7107.1219521623@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo | 2008-08-23 20:05:21 | Re: psql vs. pgadmin3 was:can't get UPDATE ... RETURNING ... INTO ... to compile successfully |
| Previous Message | Garry Saddington | 2008-08-23 19:51:51 | query takes a long time |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-08-23 20:23:59 | Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-08-23 19:50:08 | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |