Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote:
>> Indeed, PG does not try to handle child table as an independent object
>> from a parent table. However, if so, it seems to me strange that we can
>> assign individual ownership and access privileges on child tables.
> I tend to agree. Perhaps we should bring up, in an independent thread,
> the question of if that really makes sense or if we should do something
> to prevent it (or at least issue a warning when we detect it).
The reason there is still some value in setting permissions state on a
child table is that that controls what happens when you address the
child table directly, rather than implicitly by querying its parent.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
