Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> That doesn't mean this one isn't useful. Please revert this.
>
> > Well, Tom and I thought it caused confusion, as did the person reporting
> > the confusion. You saying to revert it isn't enough.
>
> A
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> That doesn't mean this one isn't useful. Please revert this.
> Well, Tom and I thought it caused confusion, as did the person reporting
> the confusion. You saying to revert it isn't enough.
A possible compromise is to descr
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > True, there doesn't seem to be any point in providing a full syntax
> > > summary rather than just saying "the SQL spec says you can grant
> > > privileges on columns but we don't support that yet".
> >
> > Agreed. Patch attached and applied. I
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > True, there doesn't seem to be any point in providing a full syntax
> > summary rather than just saying "the SQL spec says you can grant
> > privileges on columns but we don't support that yet".
>
> Agreed. Patch attached and applied. I don't see any other cases of
> this
Tom Lane wrote:
> True, there doesn't seem to be any point in providing a full syntax
> summary rather than just saying "the SQL spec says you can grant
> privileges on columns but we don't support that yet".
I think it's pretty useful if people see a command of this form from
some other implemen
