(2010/08/17 11:58), Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost<[email protected]> writes: >> * KaiGai Kohei ([email protected]) wrote: >>> Indeed, PG does not try to handle child table as an independent object >>> from a parent table. However, if so, it seems to me strange that we can >>> assign individual ownership and access privileges on child tables. > >> I tend to agree. Perhaps we should bring up, in an independent thread, >> the question of if that really makes sense or if we should do something >> to prevent it (or at least issue a warning when we detect it). > > The reason there is still some value in setting permissions state on a > child table is that that controls what happens when you address the > child table directly, rather than implicitly by querying its parent. > However, isn't it strange if we stand on the perspective that child table is a part of parent object? It means an object have multiple properties depending on the context. If we want to allow someone to reference a part of the table (= child table), I think VIEW is more appropriate and flexible tool.
Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <[email protected]> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
