Message-ID: <4A38FE29.5030205@pjmodos.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:31:05 +0200
From: Petr Jelinek <pjmodos@pjmodos.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema
References: <4A37BF63.50008@pjmodos.net> <4A37E122.8070303@pjmodos.net>
	<4A38A956.8080600@pjmodos.net> <200906171644.53717.peter_e@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <200906171644.53717.peter_e@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think you should design this with a bit wider scope.  Instead of just "all 
> tables in this schema", think "all tables satisfying some condition".  It has 
> been requested, for example, to be able to grant on all tables that match a 
> pattern.
>   
Well, that's certainly possible to do. But I am not sure what kind of 
conditions (besides the name), nor I don't see any sane grammar for this 
(maybe something like GRANT SELECT ON TABLE WHERE NAME LIKE '%foo' but 
that's far to weird). That all tables in this schema thing was agreed on 
on this mailing list and put on TODO so I thought it's something people 
want in this form (I know I needed it myself).

> As far as GRANT is concerned, a view is a table, so I would omit the 
> VIEW/VIEWS stuff completely.
>   
This maybe true for underlying implementation and for granting 
permissions to a single object, but you might want to grant select on 
all views without granting it to all tables in the schema. And as I said 
having VIEWS and not VIEW just seems weird. Also I don't see why you 
would want to add possibility of specifying stricter conditions for 
objects and at the same time remove possibility of distinguishing 
between tables and views.

-- 
Regards
Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS)