Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT
Date
Msg-id 200601062034.k06KYcZ08389@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> > But my question is rather - is there any scenario where setval() should
> > go with nextval()?
>
> > It seems that their pairing is an accident and should be fixed.
>
> I think the original argument for the current design was that with
> enough nextval's you can duplicate the effect of a setval.  This is only
> strictly true if the sequence is CYCLE mode, and even then it'd take a
> whole lot of patience to wrap an int8 sequence around ... but the
> distinction between them is not so large as you make it out to be.
>
> In any case I think we are wasting our time discussing it, and instead
> should be looking through the SQL2003 spec to see what it requires.
> Bruce couldn't find anything in it about this but I can't believe the
> info isn't there somewhere.

What I did was to read through the GRANT and SEQUENCE sections, then I
dumped it to text and did a grep for 'grant' or perm* appearing on the
same line as sequence, and came up with nothing.

--
  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

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT
Next
From: Marko Kreen
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT