Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> what we really have is:
>>
>> SELECT: read sequence as a table
>> UPDATE: all sequence-specific operations.
> Since the sequence-specific operations are really just function calls,
> maybe it should be:
> SELECT: read sequence as a table
> EXECUTE: all sequence-specific operations.
But is it worth creating a compatibility problem for? Existing pg_dump
scripts are likely to GRANT UPDATE. They certainly won't say GRANT
EXECUTE since that doesn't even exist in current releases.
I agree that EXECUTE (or some sequence-specific permission name we might
think of instead) would be logically cleaner, but I don't think it's
worth the trouble of coming up with a compatibility workaround. UPDATE
doesn't seem unreasonably far off the mark.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
