Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE12F635668 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:49:21 -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 08036-01-4 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:49:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from alexis.jtlnet.com (alexis.jtlnet.com [69.36.9.81]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8933B635C96 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:48:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.10.103] (cpe-075-177-154-027.nc.res.rr.com [::ffff:75.177.154.27]) (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by alexis.jtlnet.com with esmtp; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:44:14 -0400 id 00087FC5.4A79B6DF.0000115B Message-ID: <4A79B7E5.1020509@dunslane.net> Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:48:37 -0400 From: Andrew Dunstan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20071019 Fedora/1.0.9-3.fc6 pango-text SeaMonkey/1.0.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: Robert Haas , Stephen Frost , Nikhil Sontakke , Petr Jelinek , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema References: <4A37BF63.50008@pjmodos.net> <4A37E122.8070303@pjmodos.net> <4A38A956.8080600@pjmodos.net> <4A4DE104.8090605@pjmodos.net> <4A6059B4.5010004@pjmodos.net> <4A607997.3030305@pjmodos.net> <603c8f070907191628r6929055coe7627726a33ed143@mail.gmail.com> <603c8f070908050932m19e7db65u9dab6d8001c5a237@mail.gmail.com> <20810.1249490458@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <20810.1249490458@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 200908/332 X-Sequence-Number: 142975 Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not sure whether there is consensus on not using GRANT ON VIEW > (ie, having these patches treat tables and views alike). I was waiting > to see if Stephen would put forward a convincing counterargument ... > > > Conceptually it is right, I think. A view is a virtual table, so the counter-argument would need to be pretty good ISTM. cheers andrew