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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error
Date
Msg-id 7107.1219521623@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Yes, I assumed we were following the recent work on ALTER TABLE/VIEW
> with GRANT/REVOKE.  Peter, Tom, how is GRANT/REVOKE different?

GRANT/REVOKE behavior is specified by the standard, whereas the stuff
we allow under ALTER VIEW is all an extension to the standard --- not
merely syntax-wise, but functionality.

A concrete reason not to do it is that if someone writes GRANT ON VIEW,
their code won't port to other DBs that are following the spec, and
it'll be only because we allowed non-spec syntactic sugar, not because
they're using functionality not covered by the spec.

We routinely complain about mysql inventing nonstandard ways to express
things that have perfectly good spec-compliant equivalents.  How would
this be different?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should enum GUCs be listed as such in config.sgml?
Next
From: "Robert Haas"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error