Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On Tuesday 01 July 2008 01:39:13 Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> Is there a downside to adding "VIEW" in parser/gram.y:privilege_target? > >> > >> The SQL standard doesn't specify it. And there is no need for it. > > > 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.
OK, removed from TODO. -- 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
