Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT

Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Good point about compatibility. But makes the common case ugly.
> > "For regular usage you need to grant SELECT, USAGE ..." Huh? :)
>
> > How about this:
>
> > SELECT: currval
> > INSERT: nextval
> > UPDATE: nextval, setval
> > USAGE: nextval, currval
>
> Seems a little weird. Hmm ... what is the use-case for allowing someone
> to do nextval but not currval? I can't see one. How about we simplify
> this to
>
> SELECT: currval
> UPDATE: nextval, setval
> USAGE: nextval, currval
>
> This is still upward compatible with our old behavior, which is
>
> SELECT: currval
> UPDATE: nextval, setval
>
> and it still meets the SQL spec's requirement that USAGE allow nextval,
> and USAGE is the only one you need for "normal" usage.

I think your original proposal was better. Why is it important that we
have a single-keyword usage for the common case? No one has complained
about what we have now and that requires two keywords just like your
proposal. We don't have a shorthand for GRANT INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. In
fact, if it was backward-compatible I would suggest we make UPDATE just
setval. Does the standard require USAGE to support currval?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073