* Merlin Moncure ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 1/24/07, Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >when you create them. Table rights almost always follow broad rules > >so it only natural to integrate that with schemas somehow...but > >admittedly it is awkward to put it into GRANT (and I've thought alot a > >bout. > > oops :( what I meant to say here is that I don't think it's possible > to this in the way that Stephen wants because it would hack up GRANT > to much. Tom was at least half right, this proposal was not discarded > out of hand but it was on pretty shaky ground...I was one of the big > supporters of extending grant this way in the original discussion but > I think it might be the wrong approach.
err, what proposal wasn't touching the GRANT syntax at all but rather
adding some options to ALTER SCHEMA which I didn't think was all that
bad (and wasn't commented on except to point out that I needed to handle
different object types seperately). The current opposition, aiui, is
against having a 'default owner' for new objects in a schema and not the
default ACLs per schema.
I don't think it makes sense to have this syntax be part of the GRANT
syntax since it's really about a schema...
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
