| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Copying Permissions |
| Date: | 2016-11-09 18:18:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY7rqpgKzgsMraHjqVauO1MRa3BJXDsWab2UoUhuO_tMw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Second, as always, what's the syntax going to actually be? I don't
> think GRANT SAME PERMISSIONS is going to work out too well in the
> parser, and it seems a bit grotty to me anyway. I do think this should
> be associated with GRANT rather than ALTER TABLE- GRANT is what we use
> for managing privileges on an object.
One thing to think about is that GRANT sort of implies adding
privileges, but this operation would both add and remove privileges as
necessary.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-09 18:24:29 | Re: Danger of automatic connection reset in psql |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-09 18:13:48 | Re: IPv6 link-local addresses and init data type |