Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Log Message:
> > > > -----------
> > > > Have \dn+ show permissions and description for schemas.
> > >
> > > Did we agree on this? It's now inconsistent with tables and other
> > > objects.
> >
> > No one disagreed that I remember. How are we inconsistent exactly?
>
> Dennis asked for opinions about how to name the command. There were
> other opinions offered. The patch was just an example, without a
> decision on the name of the command.
>
> The inconsistency is that there is a separate "show permissions" command
> for tables, but for schemas it's now under "extra information". Now we
> can't be sure where the permission information for the next object will
> end up. That's not good.
With \dp having a schema column, how would we display permissions there?
Access privileges for database "test"
Schema | Name | Type | Access privileges
--------+------+-------+-------------------
public | test | table |
(1 row)
I don't think it makes sense to add schema to \dp if it would not
normally appear in the \dp display.
I figured schema permissions were different enough from table that is
belonged under schema, no? Also, to me view/table/sequence are data
storage objects, while schemas seem different.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (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 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
