| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |
| Date: | 2009-08-15 15:11:21 |
| Message-ID: | 13473.1250349081@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> why we need DO statement? Why not just $$ $$. Only string literal
>> cannot be statement too, so DO is unnecessary.
> I'm also not sure I want to be trying to execute any arbitrary string
> that accidentally gets placed there because someone forgot to put a
> keyword or accidentally deleted it.
That's my feeling as well. Also, I don't think it is sane to allow
options (like "LANGUAGE foo") on a standalone string constant. Yeah,
we could persuade bison to do it, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2009-08-15 15:44:10 | Re: postgres-r |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-08-15 13:49:57 | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |