Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Does the standard require USAGE to support currval?

currval isn't in the standard (unless I missed something), so it has
nothing to say one way or the other on the point.

Basically what we seem to be homing in on is to keep SELECT and UPDATE
privileges doing what they do now and then add a USAGE privilege.
I think I agree with Marko that USAGE should mean nextval + currval;
it already must overlap UPDATE and so there's no very good reason why it
shouldn't overlap SELECT too. Furthermore there's no plausible use-case
where you'd want to grant nextval but not currval, so why not keep the
notation simple?

regards, tom lane