Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:44:24 -0800,
> Josh Berkus <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> It might be nice to split nextval and currval access as well. nextval access
> corresponds to INSERT and currval access to SELECT.
Uh, that is already in the code. nextval()/setval() is UPDATE, and
currval() is SELECT.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
email@example.com | (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: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not