From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PROPERTY GRAPH pg_dump ACL minimization
In-reply-to: <20260704144630.34.noahmisch@microsoft.com>
References: <20260630023308.c7.noahmisch@microsoft.com>
 <2453089.1782789061@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAExHW5tz+ufmneS+gYTNrYLbi=bF=D2Xp5rvr12cuLYoNn80kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExHW5va66cEd6uXvj16F0dGRfikWXf7jzRULrqV3OQ99EPsXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20260704144630.34.noahmisch@microsoft.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
	message dated "Sat, 04 Jul 2026 07:46:30 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <228453.1783180270.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2026 11:51:10 -0400
Message-ID: <228454.1783180270@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/228454.1783180270%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 09:51:13PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> Since property graphs share the namespace with regular tables, I think
>> GRANT ... TABLE should be supported on property graphs, but restrict
>> it to only the privileges applicable to property graphs.

> I don't have a strong opinion on that, but I likely would have chosen to=
 block
> GRANT TABLE on a propgraph.  The backward compatibility argument written=
 for
> SEQUENCE likely means that someone noticed GRANT TABLE worked on sequenc=
es and
> decided both that it was a mistake and that reversing the mistake would =
be a
> cure worse than the disease.

My recollection is that there was an intentional policy change.
Originally the idea was "why make people be careful about which
kind of relation they're granting on?".  The arguments made
against that included:

* It's exposing an implementation detail, namely that sequences
and tables live in the same catalog.  Admittedly that detail is
also exposed by the fact that they can't share a name.

* It doesn't comport very well with the fact that the sets of
possible privileges are different.

* It doesn't obey the SQL standard (I think, maybe someone will
correct me).

But you are entirely right that we felt that disallowing what used
to work was worse than leaving it alone.  We need not duplicate that
mistake for a new kind of relation, and should not.

			regards, tom lane