Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E28632A09 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:12:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56647-10 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:12:48 +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 762796329EF for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:12:48 -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 n7GGCeJ8000396; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:12:40 -0400 (EDT) To: Peter Eisentraut cc: Andrew Dunstan , Robert Haas , Sam Mason , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema In-reply-to: <1250427428.26280.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net> References: <603c8f070908050951s3e5df452se4c610f01b80bb7d@mail.gmail.com> <4A7FE7F902000025000296E3@gw.wicourts.gov> <4A803A89.9020509@dunslane.net> <2CCE9C1D-919D-45D5-BFC2-C7723C45064E@hi-media.com> <162867790908150434j7aef36ecm202e81c4bb4740fa@mail.gmail.com> <4A86B5D5.6060807@dunslane.net> <4A871F46.1040002@agliodbs.com> <5D5ECAE0-F2B0-479B-9594-50AAF18F10ED@hi-media.com> <20090815223102.GS5407@samason.me.uk> <1250378139.18992.6.camel@vanquo.pezone.net> <603c8f070908152051mbd1d706hb0e29f5cfaf2f151@mail.gmail.com> <4A87854B.3070707@dunslane.net> <1250427428.26280.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:57:08 +0300" Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:12:40 -0400 Message-ID: <395.1250439160@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=BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200908/1225 X-Sequence-Number: 143868 Peter Eisentraut writes: > On sön, 2009-08-16 at 00:04 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> SQL is not Lisp. Simple is good. I didn't think Peter was really very >> serious. > Well, I don't know if we really need to call it "lambda", but I fully > expect to be able to use these "ad hoc functions" as part of other > expressions. Why would you expect that? To be used in an expression, you'd also need decoration to tell the function argument types, result type, volatility properties, etc etc (your proposed lambda notation is far too simplistic). I think you're moving the goalposts to a point where we'd need ANOTHER, simpler, mechanism to accomplish the original intent. And frankly, all of the user demand I've heard is for the latter not the former. By the time you get into specifying function properties you might as well just create a function. regards, tom lane