Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT

On 1/6/06, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > I found SQL2003 pdf's too ... from my reading it has only USAGE.
> >
> > 5WD-02-Foundation-2003-09.pdf:
> > page 724 -> General Rules -> #2
> > page 740 -> Syntax rules -> #3
>
> I admit I am terrible at understanding the standard, but I can't find
> anything relevant on the page numbers you mentioned. Are those the
> document pages or the page numbers displayed by the PDF viewer? What is
> the section heading? I am using the same filename you have.

Those are print page numbers. (In case you have dead-tree variant :)
And I got them here: http://www.wiscorp.com/SQLStandards.html

Uh, and they are bit wrong. Ok here are they fully:

11.62 <sequence generator definition>
General rules (page 727 printed/751 real) point #2

12.3 <privileges>
Syntax rules (page 740 printed/764 real) point #3

> > Everything combined:
> > SELECT: currval
> > UPDATE: nextval
> > USAGE: currval, nextval
> > ALTER: setval
> >
> > Confusing?
>
> I see USAGE in the standard, but not ALTER. We don't support USAGE so I
> am guessing our SELECT/UPDATE behavior is OK.

No, we still want to separate setval from nextval.

> Does this mean we should
> only allow owners to do setval(), rather than binding it to INSERT?

My first reaction is that it should be grantable, although
I can't find any reasons for it, except backwards compatibility.

How about this:

SELECT: currval
INSERT: nextval
USAGE: currval, nextval
UPDATE: setval

--
marko