From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>
Subject: Re: doc change request (7.4.6, reference section, grant)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:19:56 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1
Cc: maillist@shauny.de, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501312008200.5202@lilly.baden-online.de>
	<200501312116.11783.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<20050131204851.GC19057@dcc.uchile.cl>
In-Reply-To: <20050131204851.GC19057@dcc.uchile.cl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200501312219.56842.peter_e@gmx.net>

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> It's useful (and consistent) to have a mention on the GRANT page. 
> Else, the list in GRANT should be a plain list of available
> privileges, without the text that currently follows each.

In any case, his proposed change was wrong because the required 
privileges depend on the lock type.  Then you start duplicating all 
that information and it's going to become a mess to maintain.  The 
existing list gives a basic idea of what each privilege is for and 
explicitly states that details are to be found on the reference page of 
each command.  Note that the "basic ideas" are fairly static: the 
SELECT privilege is always going to allow SELECT.  But I will resist 
the demand to duplicate the privilege rules of each command and 
function on the GRANT reference page.

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