* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 16 October 2014 20:04, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> GRANT CAPABILITY whatever TO somebody; > >> > >> So, we went back to just role attributes to avoid the keyword issue.. > >> The above would require making 'CAPABILITY' a reserved word, and there > >> really isn't a 'good' already-reserved word we can use there that I > >> found. > > > > Ah, good point. Using ALTER ROLE is better. Maybe we should do ALTER > > ROLE .. [ ADD | DROP ] CAPABILITY x. That would still require making > > CAPABILITY a keyword, but it could be unreserved. > > I thought you had it right first time. It is mighty annoying that some > privileges are GRANTed and others ALTER ROLEd.
Yeah- but there's a material difference in the two, as I tried to
outline previously..
> How about
>
> GRANT EXECUTE [PRIVILEGES] ON CAPABILITY foo TO bar;
>
> That is similar to granting execution privs on a function. And I think
> gets round the keyword issue?
No, it doesn't.. EXECUTE isn't reserved at all.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
