On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:44:24 -0800,
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> 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.
It might be nice to split nextval and currval access as well. nextval access
corresponds to INSERT and currval access to SELECT.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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
