* Merlin Moncure ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >when you create them.  Table rights almost always follow broad rules
> >so it only natural to integrate that with schemas somehow...but
> >admittedly it is awkward to put it into GRANT (and I've thought alot a
> >bout.
> oops :( what I meant to say here is that I don't think it's possible
> to this in the way that Stephen wants because it would hack up GRANT
> to much.  Tom was at least half right, this proposal was not discarded
> out of hand but it was on pretty shaky ground...I was one of the big
> supporters of extending grant this way in the original discussion but
> I think it might be the wrong approach.

err, what proposal wasn't touching the GRANT syntax at all but rather
adding some options to ALTER SCHEMA which I didn't think was all that
bad (and wasn't commented on except to point out that I needed to handle
different object types seperately).  The current opposition, aiui, is
against having a 'default owner' for new objects in a schema and not the
default ACLs per schema.

I don't think it makes sense to have this syntax be part of the GRANT
syntax since it's really about a schema...



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to