On Sat, 18 May 2002 19:45:30 -0400 "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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.
Well, one possible compatibility workaround would be trivial -- we could hack GRANT so that doing GRANT UPDATE on sequence relations is translated into GRANT EXECUTE. As for whether it's worth the bother, I'm not sure -- neither solution strikes me as particularly clean. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC ---------------------------(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
