Am Montag, 12. August 2002 08:02 schrieb Don Baccus:
> Curt Sampson wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Don Baccus wrote:
> >>I've been wanting to point out that SQL views are really, when
> >>scrutinized, "just syntactic sugar" ...
> >
> > Oh? Ok, please translate the following into equivalant SQL that
> > does not use a view:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE t1 (key serial, value1 text, value2 text);
> > CREATE VIEW v1 AS SELECT key, value1 FROM t1;
> > GRANT SELECT ON v1 TO sorin;
>
> Granulize GRANT to the table column level. Then GRANT "SELECT" perms
> for the user on every column from the two tables that happen to be
> included in the view.
>
> Yes, it's awkward. So are the VIEW-based replacements for PG's type
> extensibility features.
But this is not a replacement for a view, isn't it? With a view I can do this:
create view v1 as select name, salary from workers where type <> 'MANAGEMENT';
with column permissions I must give access to all workers salary including the management, but not with a view.
best regards, mario weilguni
