From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-hackers] Allow GRANT/REVOKE permissions to be applied to all schema |
Date: | 2005-01-29 19:43:39 |
Message-ID: | 200501291443.39933.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Saturday 29 January 2005 09:14, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> > Or just make the user enter two commands for this case. Aside from
> > syntactic simplicity, that might be a good idea anyway. The NEW TABLES
> > case is *fundamentally* different from every other form of GRANT, in
> > that it causes future actions. So it might be a wise idea from the
> > standpoint of understandability to keep it as a separate command from
> > the immediate-acting ALL TABLES.
>
> I agree with this- issueing two seperate commands in this instance seems
> like it'd be fine and not terribly onerous.
>
In general I'd agree, although as I start to think of the different
combinations of tables/views/functions/sequences/types/operators/etc.. my
head does start to spin.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Victor Yegorov | 2005-01-29 19:54:39 | Re: Implementing Bitmap Indexes |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2005-01-29 19:37:22 | Re: [pgsql-hackers] Patent issues and 8.1 |