Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?

OK, so this is a standards issue, then, OK, makes sense.

--
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. +