Bruce, Tom, > > The permissions for a sequence aren't the same as they are for a > > table. We've sort of ignored the point to date, but if we're going to > > add special syntax for granting on a sequence, I don't think we should > > continue to ignore it. > > Uh, how are they different? You mean just UPDATE and none of the > others do anything?
Yes, it would be nice to have real permissions for sequences, specifically USE (which allows nextval() and currval()) and UPDATE (which would allow setval() ). However, I don't know that the added functionality would justify breaking backwards-compatibility. Oh, and Bruce, I can't imagine needing specific relkind so I think that part's fine. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
