Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT

I wrote:
> 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.

Wait, I take that back. Remember our previous discussions about this
point: the spec's NEXT VALUE FOR construct is *not* equivalent to
nextval, because they specify that the sequence advances just once per
command even if the command says NEXT VALUE FOR in multiple places.
This means that NEXT VALUE FOR is effectively both nextval and currval;
the first one in a command does nextval and the rest do currval.

Accordingly, I think it's reasonable to read the spec as saying that
USAGE privilege encompasses both nextval and currval.

regards, tom lane