Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error
Date
Msg-id 3912.1219507977@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error  ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On Tuesday 01 July 2008 01:39:13 Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Is there a downside to adding "VIEW" in parser/gram.y:privilege_target?
>> 
>> The SQL standard doesn't specify it.  And there is no need for it.

> While we don't _need_ it, it would make our system more consistent;  we
> have made similar changes for views in other areas.

I'm not sure it'd make the system more consistent.  Because the SQL
standard says you use GRANT ON TABLE for a view. we'd have to always
ensure that we accepted that; whereas in at least some other places
we are trying to be picky about TABLE/VIEW/SEQUENCE actually matching
the object type.

Given the spec precedent, I'm inclined to leave it alone.  It's not like
there aren't plenty of other SQL quirks that surprise novices.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal sql: labeled function params
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal sql: labeled function params