Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT

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

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco