Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=Apple-Mail-E48D5A97-3CE6-4A72-ABF4-64EEEC1ADC1B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Strange inconsistency using psql
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:35:11 -0500
Message-Id: <8C7A5C93-FBA2-49A7-AF59-1314585F67A0@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAHw75vt=iodvVhKb+EzGCwXBzG2og6bdMzQV7HJSeKw7meriow@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHw75vt=iodvVhKb+EzGCwXBzG2og6bdMzQV7HJSeKw7meriow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keith <keith@keithf4.com>
Precedence: bulk


--Apple-Mail-E48D5A97-3CE6-4A72-ABF4-64EEEC1ADC1B
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Correct, but my question really is, why is VIEW different from all the other=
 types of objects? Shouldn=E2=80=99t the word VIEW also be an optional quali=
fier for the name of the object? Inconsistency strikes me as an oversight.

Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 18, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Keith <keith@keithf4.com> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BF
>=20
>=20
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:29 PM John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>> 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:
>>=20
>> GRANT all ON TABLE x TO new_user;
>>=20
>> Where TABLE is either that object or a SEQUENCE or FUNCTION. These all wo=
rked 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=E2=80=99s name=
 being specified, however, if I omitted the word VIEW, and not specify the t=
ype of object, then the GRANT succeeded.
>>=20
>> Was this intentional behavior, or is the grammar slightly amiss? All the o=
ther types of objects worked perfectly with this style of command.
>> =E2=80=94
>> Jay
>>=20
>> Sent from my iPad
>>=20
>=20
> There is no VIEW clause to the GRANT command. The TABLE clause is actually=
 optional in the command when setting privileges on tables or views. And gen=
erally you can use the privileges used on tables when setting privileges on v=
iews.
>=20
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-grant.html
>=20
> Keith

--Apple-Mail-E48D5A97-3CE6-4A72-ABF4-64EEEC1ADC1B
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto">Correct, but my question really is, why is V=
IEW different from all the other types of objects? Shouldn=E2=80=99t the wor=
d VIEW also be an optional qualifier for the name of the object? Inconsisten=
cy strikes me as an oversight.<br><br><div dir=3D"ltr">Sent from my iPad</di=
v><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><blockquote type=3D"cite">On Dec 18, 2019, at 12:41 P=
M, Keith &lt;keith@keithf4.com&gt; wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockqu=
ote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr">=EF=BB=BF<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr=
"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_a=
ttr">On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:29 PM John Scalia &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jayk=
nowsunix@gmail.com">jayknowsunix@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px s=
olid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I had to do some privilege assignmen=
ts this morning on a bunch of tables, sequences, functions, and views. On al=
l of these object, I generally try to use a command like:<br>
<br>
GRANT all ON TABLE x TO new_user;<br>
<br>
Where TABLE is either that object or a SEQUENCE or FUNCTION. These all worke=
d perfectly for me. What did not work was specifying that the object was a V=
IEW. The system would spit out a syntax error at the object=E2=80=99s name b=
eing specified, however, if I omitted the word VIEW, and not specify the typ=
e of object, then the GRANT succeeded.<br>
<br>
Was this intentional behavior, or is the grammar slightly amiss? All the oth=
er types of objects worked perfectly with this style of command.<br>
=E2=80=94<br>
Jay<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is no VIEW clause to the GRANT co=
mmand. The TABLE clause is actually optional in the command when setting pri=
vileges on tables or views. And generally you can use the privileges used on=
 tables when setting privileges on views. </div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D=
"https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-grant.html">https://www.postgre=
sql.org/docs/current/sql-grant.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>Keith<br></=
div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail-E48D5A97-3CE6-4A72-ABF4-64EEEC1ADC1B--