Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I brought this up a few months ago. Tom, weren't your objections
> based more on implementation concerns than on whether the idea
> itself had merit?
No, my point was that making implicit sequences work transparently
requires more thought than this. I'd
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:35:20AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Should we perhaps also propagate grant insert on a table to grant
> > select, update on dependent serial sequences?
>
> Doesn't really follow. That code is maintaining an invariant
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I assume that this behaviour makes change owner on a table change owner
> of serial sequences?
Yeah.
> Should we perhaps also propagate grant insert on a table to grant
> select, update on dependent serial sequences?
Doesn't really follow.
Fix two bugs in change_owner_recurse_to_sequences: it was grabbing an
overly strong lock on pg_depend, and it wasn't closing the rel when done.
The latter bug was masked by the ResourceOwner code, which is something
that should be changed.
I assume that this behaviour makes change owner on a table
