Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:44:24 -0800, > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> 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 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: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
