Bruce, Tom,

> > The permissions for a sequence aren't the same as they are for a
> > table. We've sort of ignored the point to date, but if we're going to
> > add special syntax for granting on a sequence, I don't think we should
> > continue to ignore it.
> Uh, how are they different?   You mean just UPDATE and none of the
> others do anything?

Yes, it would be nice to have real permissions for sequences, specifically 
USE (which allows nextval() and currval()) and UPDATE (which would allow 
setval() ).   However, I don't know that the added functionality would 
justify breaking backwards-compatibility.

Oh, and Bruce, I can't imagine needing specific relkind so I think that 
part's fine.


Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to