| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error |
| Date: | 2008-08-23 16:12:57 |
| Message-ID: | 3912.1219507977@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On Tuesday 01 July 2008 01:39:13 Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Is there a downside to adding "VIEW" in parser/gram.y:privilege_target?
>>
>> The SQL standard doesn't specify it. And there is no need for it.
> 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-23 16:22:19 | Re: Array, ANY and Regular Expressions |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-08-23 13:52:54 | Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-23 16:15:05 | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-08-23 16:08:25 | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |