| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |
| Date: | 2006-01-06 04:56:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20060106045649.GA13122@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:44:24 -0800,
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Bruce, Tom,
>
> > > The permissions for a sequence aren't the same as they are for a
> > > table. We've sort of ignored the point to date, but if we're going to
> > > add special syntax for granting on a sequence, I don't think we should
> > > continue to ignore it.
> >
> > Uh, how are they different? You mean just UPDATE and none of the
> > others do anything?
>
> Yes, it would be nice to have real permissions for sequences, specifically
> USE (which allows nextval() and currval()) and UPDATE (which would allow
> setval() ). However, I don't know that the added functionality would
> justify breaking backwards-compatibility.
It might be nice to split nextval and currval access as well. nextval access
corresponds to INSERT and currval access to SELECT.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2006-01-06 06:24:41 | Re: Improving N-Distinct estimation by ANALYZE |
| Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2006-01-06 03:50:37 | Re: Warm-up cache may have its virtue |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-01-06 11:06:55 | Re: display and expression of the home directory in Win32 |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2006-01-06 03:46:26 | Re: Summary table trigger example race condition |