public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Ashutosh Bapat <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Noah Misch <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: PROPERTY GRAPH pg_dump ACL minimization
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 17:25:46 +0530
Message-ID: <CAExHW5ugaBStyk9FajPpyTfMW20qbNVR+DdQQqRGfcbtT9-njQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAExHW5tz+ufmneS+gYTNrYLbi=bF=D2Xp5rvr12cuLYoNn80kg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAExHW5va66cEd6uXvj16F0dGRfikWXf7jzRULrqV3OQ99EPsXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On Sat, Jul 4, 2026 at 9:21 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Noah Misch <[email protected]> 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 sequences 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.

Thanks for the clarification. I will change the patch to prohibit
using GRANT ... TABLE on a property graph.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat

view thread (11+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: PROPERTY GRAPH pg_dump ACL minimization
  In-Reply-To: <CAExHW5ugaBStyk9FajPpyTfMW20qbNVR+DdQQqRGfcbtT9-njQ@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox