Thomas Hallgren wrote: > > It looks to me like the asymmetry between CREATE TRIGGER and DROP > > TRIGGER is actually required by SQL99, though, so changing it would > > be a hard sell (unless SQL2003 fixes it?). > > > > Comments anyone? > > > Why not say that TRUNCATE requires the same privilige as a DELETE and > add a trigger type that fires (once) on a TRUNCATE? That would give an > owner a chance to prevent it. Such a trigger would probably be useful > for other things too.
Uh, that seems like it adds extra complexity just for this single case. Why don't we allow TRUNCATE by non-owners only if no triggers are defined, and if they are defined, we throw an error and mention it is because triggers/contraints exist? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
