From: John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com>
To: Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Strange inconsistency using psql
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:28:46 -0500
Message-ID: <2A39B85B-54CC-485B-9722-FCA13396E271@gmail.com> (raw)
I had to do some privilege assignments this morning on a bunch of tables, sequences, functions, and views. On all of these object, I generally try to use a command like:
GRANT all ON TABLE x TO new_user;
Where TABLE is either that object or a SEQUENCE or FUNCTION. These all worked perfectly for me. What did not work was specifying that the object was a VIEW. The system would spit out a syntax error at the object’s name being specified, however, if I omitted the word VIEW, and not specify the type of object, then the GRANT succeeded.
Was this intentional behavior, or is the grammar slightly amiss? All the other types of objects worked perfectly with this style of command.
—
Jay
Sent from my iPad
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: jayknowsunix@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Strange inconsistency using psql
In-Reply-To: <2A39B85B-54CC-485B-9722-FCA13396E271@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox