Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> > It looks to me like the asymmetry between CREATE TRIGGER and DROP
> > TRIGGER is actually required by SQL99, though, so changing it would
> > be a hard sell (unless SQL2003 fixes it?).
> >
> > Comments anyone?
> >
> Why not say that TRUNCATE requires the same privilige as a DELETE and
> add a trigger type that fires (once) on a TRUNCATE? That would give an
> owner a chance to prevent it. Such a trigger would probably be useful
> for other things too.
Uh, that seems like it adds extra complexity just for this single case.
Why don't we allow TRUNCATE by non-owners only if no triggers are
defined, and if they are defined, we throw an error and mention it is
because triggers/contraints exist?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073