Thread: Fix misleading references to columns in GRANT/REVOKE summaries

Folks,

Per a question Alexey Parshin asked in the IRC channel, I'm attaching
a patch to the GRANT and REVOKE syntax summaries which replaces the
misleading word "column" with "parameter."  "Column" is misleading
because it could be read to imply a column-level GRANT/REVOKE, which
we don't have yet.

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> Per a question Alexey Parshin asked in the IRC channel, I'm attaching
> a patch to the GRANT and REVOKE syntax summaries which replaces the
> misleading word "column" with "parameter."  "Column" is misleading
> because it could be read to imply a column-level GRANT/REVOKE, which
> we don't have yet.

Apparently it's so misleading that you didn't understand it either.
The entire *point* of that paragraph is that we don't have the
feature.  This proposed change is surely not an improvement...

            regards, tom lane

Russell Smith <mr-russ@pws.com.au> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The entire *point* of that paragraph is that we don't have the
>> feature.  This proposed change is surely not an improvement...
>>
> Maybe removing the entire example would be more helpful.  I don't find
> it clear to have a command outline in a compatibility block.

True, there doesn't seem to be any point in providing a full syntax
summary rather than just saying "the SQL spec says you can grant
privileges on columns but we don't support that yet".

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Russell Smith <mr-russ@pws.com.au> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The entire *point* of that paragraph is that we don't have the
> >> feature.  This proposed change is surely not an improvement...
> >>
> > Maybe removing the entire example would be more helpful.  I don't find
> > it clear to have a command outline in a compatibility block.
>
> True, there doesn't seem to be any point in providing a full syntax
> summary rather than just saying "the SQL spec says you can grant
> privileges on columns but we don't support that yet".

Agreed.  Patch attached and applied.  I don't see any other cases of
this in our documentation.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Index: doc/src/sgml/ref/grant.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/grant.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.64
diff -c -c -r1.64 grant.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/ref/grant.sgml    1 Feb 2007 00:28:19 -0000    1.64
--- doc/src/sgml/ref/grant.sgml    7 Apr 2007 03:45:36 -0000
***************
*** 520,533 ****
     </para>

     <para>
!     The SQL standard allows setting privileges for individual columns
!     within a table:
!
! <synopsis>
! GRANT <replaceable class="PARAMETER">privileges</replaceable>
!     ON <replaceable class="PARAMETER">table</replaceable> [ ( <replaceable class="PARAMETER">column</replaceable> [,
...]) ] [, ...] 
!     TO { PUBLIC | <replaceable class="PARAMETER">username</replaceable> [, ...] } [ WITH GRANT OPTION ]
! </synopsis>
     </para>

     <para>
--- 520,527 ----
     </para>

     <para>
!     <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> does not support the SQL-standard
!     functionality of setting privileges for individual columns.
     </para>

     <para>
Index: doc/src/sgml/ref/revoke.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/revoke.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.42
diff -c -c -r1.42 revoke.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/ref/revoke.sgml    31 Jan 2007 23:26:04 -0000    1.42
--- doc/src/sgml/ref/revoke.sgml    7 Apr 2007 03:45:37 -0000
***************
*** 231,245 ****

     <para>
      The compatibility notes of the <xref linkend="sql-grant" endterm="sql-grant-title"> command
!     apply analogously to <command>REVOKE</command>.  The syntax summary is:
!
! <synopsis>
! REVOKE [ GRANT OPTION FOR ] <replaceable class="PARAMETER">privileges</replaceable>
!     ON <replaceable class="parameter">object</replaceable> [ ( <replaceable class="parameter">column</replaceable> [,
...]) ] 
!     FROM { PUBLIC | <replaceable class="parameter">username</replaceable> [, ...] }
!     { RESTRICT | CASCADE }
! </synopsis>
!     One of <literal>RESTRICT</literal> or <literal>CASCADE</literal>
      is required according to the standard, but <productname>PostgreSQL</>
      assumes <literal>RESTRICT</literal> by default.
     </para>
--- 231,238 ----

     <para>
      The compatibility notes of the <xref linkend="sql-grant" endterm="sql-grant-title"> command
!     apply analogously to <command>REVOKE</command>.
!     <literal>RESTRICT</literal> or <literal>CASCADE</literal>
      is required according to the standard, but <productname>PostgreSQL</>
      assumes <literal>RESTRICT</literal> by default.
     </para>

Tom Lane wrote:
> True, there doesn't seem to be any point in providing a full syntax
> summary rather than just saying "the SQL spec says you can grant
> privileges on columns but we don't support that yet".

I think it's pretty useful if people see a command of this form from
some other implementation and don't know what it means.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > True, there doesn't seem to be any point in providing a full syntax
> > summary rather than just saying "the SQL spec says you can grant
> > privileges on columns but we don't support that yet".
>
> Agreed.  Patch attached and applied.  I don't see any other cases of
> this in our documentation.

That doesn't mean this one isn't useful.  Please revert this.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > True, there doesn't seem to be any point in providing a full syntax
> > > summary rather than just saying "the SQL spec says you can grant
> > > privileges on columns but we don't support that yet".
> >
> > Agreed.  Patch attached and applied.  I don't see any other cases of
> > this in our documentation.
>
> That doesn't mean this one isn't useful.  Please revert this.

Well, Tom and I thought it caused confusion, as did the person reporting
the confusion.  You saying to revert it isn't enough.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> That doesn't mean this one isn't useful.  Please revert this.

> Well, Tom and I thought it caused confusion, as did the person reporting
> the confusion.  You saying to revert it isn't enough.

A possible compromise is to describe or show the syntax in some informal
form, so that it didn't look like one of the <synopsis> sections we use
for supported syntax.  I'm not sure what that would look like exactly,
but I do see merit in both sides of this discussion...

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> That doesn't mean this one isn't useful.  Please revert this.
>
> > Well, Tom and I thought it caused confusion, as did the person reporting
> > the confusion.  You saying to revert it isn't enough.
>
> A possible compromise is to describe or show the syntax in some informal
> form, so that it didn't look like one of the <synopsis> sections we use
> for supported syntax.  I'm not sure what that would look like exactly,
> but I do see merit in both sides of this discussion...

I am all for us describing how we don't match the SQL spec, but just
showing the syntax doesn't seem to help people understand how we don't
match the spec, does it?  Are there more details to column-level GRANT
except saying we don't support it?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +