Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Surprising syntax error

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

OK, removed from TODO.

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

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

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers