Re: Curious (mis)behavior of access rights

"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
>> The only downside of this is that we'd lose the "feature" of being able
>> to revoke from a particular user a right that is available via PUBLIC to
>> everyone else.

> Could we add additional privlideges that explicitly restrict a user?
> Perhaps negative permissions like -x -r etc... This would override group
> and public permissions and could be set via revoke. What does the SQL Spec
> say the behaviour should be when group and user permissions are in conflict?

AFAICS the SQL spec's notion of REVOKE is the same as ours: it removes
a previously granted privilege bit. There is no concept of negative
privilege, and I can't say that I want to add one ...

regards, tom lane