Added to TODO:
Allow GRANT/REVOKE on views to use the VIEW keyword ratherthan just TABLE
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-06/msg01133.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc Munro wrote:
> -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > The statement:
> >
> > revoke all on view internal.all_objects from public;
> >
> > yields a syntax error. The docs show that the word "view" is not
> > acceptable in this statement which is fine but the surprising thing is
> > that:
> >
> > ? revoke all on table internal.all_objects from public;
> >
> > works fine even though all_objects is a view and not a table.
> >
> > Now that I know about it, this doesn't bother me but it was a surprise
> > and I wonder whether the the parser/planner/whatever should be a bit
> > smarter about allowing the word table to apply to non-tables, and
> > whether the word view ought to be allowed.
>
> Yes, I can confirm this behavior on CVS HEAD, and it is odd:
>
> test=> CREATE SCHEMA internal;
> CREATE SCHEMA
> test=> CREATE VIEW internal.all_objects AS SELECT 1;
> CREATE VIEW
> test=> REVOKE ALL ON VIEW internal.all_objects FROM PUBLIC;
> ERROR: syntax ERROR AT OR near "internal"
> LINE 1: REVOKE ALL ON VIEW internal.all_objects FROM PUBLIC;
> ^
> test=> REVOKE ALL ON TABLE internal.all_objects FROM PUBLIC;
> REVOKE
>
> Is there a downside to adding "VIEW" in parser/gram.y:privilege_target?
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
