On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 02:15:18PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/20/17 22:01, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > There's some downsides to this approach though: we do an initial set of
> > checks in ExecGrantStmt, but we can't do all of them because we don't
> > know if it's a sequence or not, so we end up with some additional
> > special checks to see if the GRANT is valid down in ExecGrant_Relation
> > after we figure out what kind of relation it is.
>
> I think that we allow a sequence to be treated like a table in GRANT
> (and other places) is a historical wart that we won't easily be able to
> get rid of. I don't think the object address system should be bent to
> accommodate that. I'd rather see the warts in the code explicitly.
Yes, I agree with that. GRANT without an object defined works fine for
sequences, so you want to keep an abstraction level where a relation
means more than a simple table.
--
Michael
