Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28A9636599 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:14:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05136-05-5 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:14:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1409636703 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:13:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n7FFBLsa013474; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:11:21 -0400 (EDT) To: Andrew Dunstan cc: Pavel Stehule , Dimitri Fontaine , Kevin Grittner , Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Nikhil Sontakke , Robert Haas , Petr Jelinek , Stephen Frost Subject: Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema In-reply-to: <4A86B5D5.6060807@dunslane.net> References: <4A37BF63.50008@pjmodos.net> <603c8f070908050951s3e5df452se4c610f01b80bb7d@mail.gmail.com> <21246.1249491592@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200908101042.35024.peter_e@gmx.net> <4A7FE7F902000025000296E3@gw.wicourts.gov> <4A803A89.9020509@dunslane.net> <2CCE9C1D-919D-45D5-BFC2-C7723C45064E@hi-media.com> <162867790908150434j7aef36ecm202e81c4bb4740fa@mail.gmail.com> <4A86B5D5.6060807@dunslane.net> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan message dated "Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:19:17 -0400" Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:11:21 -0400 Message-ID: <13473.1250349081@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.599 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200908/1192 X-Sequence-Number: 143835 Andrew Dunstan writes: > Pavel Stehule wrote: >> why we need DO statement? Why not just $$ $$. Only string literal >> cannot be statement too, so DO is unnecessary. > I'm also not sure I want to be trying to execute any arbitrary string > that accidentally gets placed there because someone forgot to put a > keyword or accidentally deleted it. That's my feeling as well. Also, I don't think it is sane to allow options (like "LANGUAGE foo") on a standalone string constant. Yeah, we could persuade bison to do it, but that doesn't make it a good idea. regards, tom lane