Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Should UPDATE also allow currval()? Your logic below seems to suggest
> that.
I thought about that, but there are a couple of reasons not to:
1. It'd be a change from the current behavior of UPDATE privilege.
2. If there's someone out there who really does want write-only
privileges for sequences, they'd be out in the cold.
I don't find either of these very compelling, but the case for changing
the behavior of UPDATE isn't strong either. I think backwards
compatibility should carry the day if there's not a strong argument
in favor of change.
regards, tom lane
