"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The only downside of this is that we'd lose the "feature" of being able
>> to revoke from a particular user a right that is available via PUBLIC to
>> everyone else.
> Could we add additional privlideges that explicitly restrict a user?
> Perhaps negative permissions like -x -r etc... This would override group
> and public permissions and could be set via revoke. What does the SQL Spec
> say the behaviour should be when group and user permissions are in conflict?
AFAICS the SQL spec's notion of REVOKE is the same as ours: it removes
a previously granted privilege bit. There is no concept of negative
privilege, and I can't say that I want to add one ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
