Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error

Robert Haas wrote:
> >> While we don't _need_ it, it would make our system more consistent; we
> >> have made similar changes for views in other areas.
> >
> > I'm not sure it'd make the system more consistent. Because the SQL
> > standard says you use GRANT ON TABLE for a view. we'd have to always
> > ensure that we accepted that; whereas in at least some other places
> > we are trying to be picky about TABLE/VIEW/SEQUENCE actually matching
> > the object type.
> >
> > Given the spec precedent, I'm inclined to leave it alone. It's not like
> > there aren't plenty of other SQL quirks that surprise novices.
>
> I fail to understand why it's advantageous to artificially create
> surprising behavior. There are cases where PostgreSQL now accepts
> either ALTER VIEW or ALTER TABLE where it previously accepted only the
> latter, so the situation is hardly without precedent. I find it
> exceedingly unlikely that anyone is relying on GRANT ON VIEW to NOT
> work.

Yes, I assumed we were following the recent work on ALTER TABLE/VIEW
with GRANT/REVOKE. Peter, Tom, how is GRANT/REVOKE different?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +