Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote: > > Also since this patch introduces VIEWS as object with grantable > > privileges, I added GRANT ON VIEW foo syntax which is more or less > > synonymous to GRANT ON TABLE foo syntax. It felt weird to have GRANT ON > > ALL VIEWS but not GRANT ON VIEW. > > As far as GRANT is concerned, a view is a table, so I would omit the > VIEW/VIEWS stuff completely.
I would disagree with this. While an explicit GRANT doesn't need to care, because you can't have a view and a table with the same name, I feel *users* (like me) make a distinction there and may want to limit the grant to just views or just tables. What we do here will also impact the DefaultACL system that I'm working on since I think we should be consistant between these two systems. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/DefaultACL I don't like the idea that a 'GRANT ALL' would actually change default ACLs for a schema though. These are two separate and distinct things- one is implementing a change to existing objects, the other is setting a default for new objects. Mixing them would lead to confusion. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
