Curt Sampson wrote: > On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote: > > >>>Oh? Ok, please translate the following into equivalant SQL that >>>does not use a view: >>>... >> >>Granulize GRANT to the table column level. > > > Can you please show me the code for that? After all, I showed you > all of my code when doing equivalants.
Obviously it would require extending SQL, but since you in part argue that SQL sucks in regard to the relational model this shouldn't matter, right? You're arguing the superiority of the relational model as described by D&D over other models, non-relational SQL (which all agree has weaknesses) and most likely God. So don't flip-flop between the "oh, SQL sucks think about the relational model" and "SQL doesn't support that". Pick one or the other. Argue SQL or D&D/relational model. It's not hard to propose *extensions* to SQL that would allow granting of perms on a column rather than table level. > Or are you saying that it's syntactic sugar only in some imaginary > version of postgres that does not exist? Sort of like the idealized relational model that isn't implemented by SQL nor PG, but yet you reference again and again when it suits you to ignore the shortcomings of SQL92? Sure. Sorry, for a moment I thought you were interested in a meaningful discussion rather than a dick-waving contest but I was wrong. I give up. Your right hand waves your dick more frequently and with much more vigor than mine. This has nothing to do with with anything I care about, though. -- Don Baccus Portland, OR http://donb.photo.net, http://birdnotes.net, http://openacs.org ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
