Am Montag, 12. August 2002 08:02 schrieb Don Baccus: > Curt Sampson wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote: > >>I've been wanting to point out that SQL views are really, when > >>scrutinized, "just syntactic sugar" ... > > > > Oh? Ok, please translate the following into equivalant SQL that > > does not use a view: > > > > CREATE TABLE t1 (key serial, value1 text, value2 text); > > CREATE VIEW v1 AS SELECT key, value1 FROM t1; > > GRANT SELECT ON v1 TO sorin; > > Granulize GRANT to the table column level. Then GRANT "SELECT" perms > for the user on every column from the two tables that happen to be > included in the view. > > Yes, it's awkward. So are the VIEW-based replacements for PG's type > extensibility features.
But this is not a replacement for a view, isn't it? With a view I can do this: create view v1 as select name, salary from workers where type <> 'MANAGEMENT'; with column permissions I must give access to all workers salary including the management, but not with a view. best regards, mario weilguni ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
