On Sat, Jul 4, 2026 at 9:21 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > Noah Misch <[email protected]> writes: > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 09:51:13PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >> Since property graphs share the namespace with regular tables, I think > >> GRANT ... TABLE should be supported on property graphs, but restrict > >> it to only the privileges applicable to property graphs. > > > I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I likely would have chosen to > > block > > GRANT TABLE on a propgraph. The backward compatibility argument written for > > SEQUENCE likely means that someone noticed GRANT TABLE worked on sequences > > and > > decided both that it was a mistake and that reversing the mistake would be a > > cure worse than the disease. > > My recollection is that there was an intentional policy change. > Originally the idea was "why make people be careful about which > kind of relation they're granting on?". The arguments made > against that included: > > * It's exposing an implementation detail, namely that sequences > and tables live in the same catalog. Admittedly that detail is > also exposed by the fact that they can't share a name. > > * It doesn't comport very well with the fact that the sets of > possible privileges are different. > > * It doesn't obey the SQL standard (I think, maybe someone will > correct me). > > But you are entirely right that we felt that disallowing what used > to work was worse than leaving it alone. We need not duplicate that > mistake for a new kind of relation, and should not.
Thanks for the clarification. I will change the patch to prohibit using GRANT ... TABLE on a property graph. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
