On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> ... There's a similar stanza for sequences, but that one uses >> ereport(WARNING...) rather than ereport(ERROR...). We could either >> remove that stanza entirely (making foreign tables consistent with >> views) or change ERROR to WARNING (making it consistent with >> sequences). > > Well, the relevant point here is that there's little or no likelihood > that we'll ever care to support direct UPDATE on sequences. This is > exactly not the case for foreign tables. So I would argue that GRANT > should handle them like views; certainly not be even more strict than > it is for sequences. > > IOW, yeah, let's drop these two checks.
OK. Turned out a little more cleanup was needed to make this all the way consistent with how we handle views; I have now done that. <pauses to listen for screaming noises> -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
