On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 02:15:18PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 12/20/17 22:01, Stephen Frost wrote: > > There's some downsides to this approach though: we do an initial set of > > checks in ExecGrantStmt, but we can't do all of them because we don't > > know if it's a sequence or not, so we end up with some additional > > special checks to see if the GRANT is valid down in ExecGrant_Relation > > after we figure out what kind of relation it is. > > I think that we allow a sequence to be treated like a table in GRANT > (and other places) is a historical wart that we won't easily be able to > get rid of. I don't think the object address system should be bent to > accommodate that. I'd rather see the warts in the code explicitly.
Yes, I agree with that. GRANT without an object defined works fine for sequences, so you want to keep an abstraction level where a relation means more than a simple table. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
