Tom Lane wrote:
> Russell Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The entire *point* of that paragraph is that we don't have the
> >> feature. This proposed change is surely not an improvement...
> >>
> > Maybe removing the entire example would be more helpful. I don't find
>
Russell Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The entire *point* of that paragraph is that we don't have the
>> feature. This proposed change is surely not an improvement...
>>
> Maybe removing the entire example would be more helpful. I don't find
> it clear to have a command
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Per a question Alexey Parshin asked in the IRC channel, I'm attaching
> a patch to the GRANT and REVOKE syntax summaries which replaces the
> misleading word "column" with "parameter." "Column" is misleading
> because it could be read to imply a column-le
Folks,
Per a question Alexey Parshin asked in the IRC channel, I'm attaching
a patch to the GRANT and REVOKE syntax summaries which replaces the
misleading word "column" with "parameter." "Column" is misleading
because it could be read to imply a column-level GRANT/REVOKE, which
we don't have yet
