Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23774.1136856968@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > At first I was just going to continue allowing table-like permissions > for sequences if a GRANT [TABLE] was used, and add the new > USAGE/SELECT/UPDATE capability only for GRANT SEQUENCE. The problem was > that you could create a non-dumpable permission setup if you added > DELETE permission to a sequence using GRANT TABLE, and USAGE permission > using GRANT SEQUENCE. That couldn't be dumped with TABLE or with > SEQUENCE, and I didn't want to do a double-dump of GRANT to fit that, > nor did I want to throw an warning during the dump run. Just ignore the inapplicable permissions during pg_dump. I think you're making this harder than it needs to be... > test=> REVOKE DELETE ON seq, tab FROM PUBLIC; > WARNING: invalid privilege type DELETE for sequence > ERROR: DELETE privilege invalid for command mixing sequences and non-sequences This is just plain silly. If you're going to go to that length, why not rearrange the code to avoid the problem instead? > Would someone look at the change in src/backend/catalog/pg_shdepend.c > for shared dependencies? We don't have any system catalog sequences let > alone any shared catalog sequences, so I assume we are OK with assuming > it is a relation. We might have such in the future though. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: