Robert Haas wrote: > >> While we don't _need_ it, it would make our system more consistent; we > >> have made similar changes for views in other areas. > > > > I'm not sure it'd make the system more consistent. Because the SQL > > standard says you use GRANT ON TABLE for a view. we'd have to always > > ensure that we accepted that; whereas in at least some other places > > we are trying to be picky about TABLE/VIEW/SEQUENCE actually matching > > the object type. > > > > Given the spec precedent, I'm inclined to leave it alone. It's not like > > there aren't plenty of other SQL quirks that surprise novices. > > I fail to understand why it's advantageous to artificially create > surprising behavior. There are cases where PostgreSQL now accepts > either ALTER VIEW or ALTER TABLE where it previously accepted only the > latter, so the situation is hardly without precedent. I find it > exceedingly unlikely that anyone is relying on GRANT ON VIEW to NOT > work.
Yes, I assumed we were following the recent work on ALTER TABLE/VIEW with GRANT/REVOKE. Peter, Tom, how is GRANT/REVOKE different? -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
