Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT
Josh Berkus wrote: > Euler, > > > It should but it's not implemented yet. There is no difficulty in doing > > it. But I want to propose the following idea: if some object depends on > > another object and its type is 'DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL' we could > > grant/revoke privileges automagically to it. Or maybe create another > > type of dependency to do so. > > Comments? > > I think this would be difficult to work out. Personally, the only > clear-cut case I can think of is SERIAL columns; other dependancies would > require a lot of conditional logic. Addded to TODO: * Allow SERIAL sequences to inherit permissions from the base table? -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(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
Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT
Euler, > It should but it's not implemented yet. There is no difficulty in doing > it. But I want to propose the following idea: if some object depends on > another object and its type is 'DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL' we could > grant/revoke privileges automagically to it. Or maybe create another > type of dependency to do so. > Comments? I think this would be difficult to work out. Personally, the only clear-cut case I can think of is SERIAL columns; other dependancies would require a lot of conditional logic. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT
--- Josh Berkus escreveu: > However, > GRANT SELECT ON TABLE table1 TO someuser; > ... works, while > GRANT SELECT ON SEQUENCE table1_id_seq TO someuser; > ... raises an error. > > This is inconsistent. Do people agree with me that the parser > should > accept "SEQUENCE" there, since the optional object name works for all > > other objects? Is there some technical reason this is difficult to > do? > It should but it's not implemented yet. There is no difficulty in doing it. But I want to propose the following idea: if some object depends on another object and its type is 'DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL' we could grant/revoke privileges automagically to it. Or maybe create another type of dependency to do so. Comments? Euler Taveira de Oliveira euler[at]yahoo_com_br ___ Yahoo! doce lar. Faça do Yahoo! sua homepage. http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
[HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT
Folks, Just got tripped up by this: GRANT SELECT ON table1 TO someuser; GRANT SELECT ON table1_id_seq TO someuser; both work However, GRANT SELECT ON TABLE table1 TO someuser; ... works, while GRANT SELECT ON SEQUENCE table1_id_seq TO someuser; ... raises an error. This is inconsistent. Do people agree with me that the parser should accept "SEQUENCE" there, since the optional object name works for all other objects? Is there some technical reason this is difficult to do? -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend