Hi *,
I will start implementing this stuff based on this syntax:
GRANT SELECT ON ALL TABLES IN public TO phpuser;
GRANT SELECT ON NEW TABLES IN public TO phpuser;
so there are two seperate commands to use.
is everybody fine with this aproach?
cheers,
Matthias
PS.: Tom, shouldn't we mention the
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Or just make the user enter two commands for this case. Aside from
syntactic simplicity, that might be a good idea anyway. The NEW TABLES
case is *fundamentally* different from every other form of GRANT, in
that it causes future actions. So it might be
On Saturday 29 January 2005 09:14, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Or just make the user enter two commands for this case. Aside from
syntactic simplicity, that might be a good idea anyway. The NEW TABLES
case is *fundamentally* different from every other form
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
Can't say I like either. I'd prefer:
GRANT [PERM] ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA [schemaname] TO [user];
I agree that this syntax seems more SQL-ish than relying on a wildcard.
GRANT SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT ON TABLES IN SCHEMA public TO php-user;
.. would
Tom,
This however seems a rather whimsical reinvention of the meaning of
CASCADE. I'm not sure if we really need to support both immediate and
delayed inheritance of privileges from a schema, but if we do, let's
please use some other keyword than CASCADE to distinguish the cases.
Also it'd
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
Hmm, what about using, ALL and NEW? i.e.
GRANT SELECT ON NEW TABLES IN public TO phpuser;
GRANT SELECT ON ALL TABLES IN public TO phpuser;
That seems good to me. More generally it would be
GRANT perm [,...] ON NEW/ALL TABLES IN schema [,...]
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes:
GRANT SELECT ON ALL, NEW TABLES IN public TO phpuser;
... does both.
Ah, I overlooked that part of your message. I think the above probably
doesn't work in bison, but if not we could spell it like
GRANT SELECT ON ALL AND NEW TABLES IN public TO phpuser;
