Re: security label support, part.2

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * KaiGai Kohei (kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com) wrote:
>> Indeed, PG does not try to handle child table as an independent object
>> from a parent table. However, if so, it seems to me strange that we can
>> assign individual ownership and access privileges on child tables.

> I tend to agree. Perhaps we should bring up, in an independent thread,
> the question of if that really makes sense or if we should do something
> to prevent it (or at least issue a warning when we detect it).

The reason there is still some value in setting permissions state on a
child table is that that controls what happens when you address the
child table directly, rather than implicitly by querying its parent.

regards, tom lane