Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C40065016C
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  9 Jul 2008 15:58:42 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 84276-03 for
	<pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  9 Jul 2008 15:58:36 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from fugue.toroid.org (fugue.toroid.org [85.10.196.113])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19450650152
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  9 Jul 2008 15:58:37 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from penne.toroid.org (penne-vpn [10.8.0.6])
	by fugue.toroid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5331855854B;
	Wed,  9 Jul 2008 20:58:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by penne.toroid.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id E5A20ADC364; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:28:37 +0530 (IST)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:28:37 +0530
From: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@oryx.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <systemguards@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Extending grant insert on tables to sequences
Message-ID: <20080709185837.GA27406@toroid.org>
References: <c2d9e70e0805221118x1411e00crd7d4aae7e6e4ea3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<c2d9e70e0805232156p20dbe2b9j2a88d35f951d625e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080708133244.GB4095@alvh.no-ip.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080708133244.GB4095@alvh.no-ip.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200807/485
X-Sequence-Number: 120745

At 2008-07-08 09:32:44 -0400, alvherre@commandprompt.com wrote:
>
> > > The idea of this patch is to avoid the need to make explicit
> > > grants on sequences owned by tables. [...]
>
> I had a look at this patch and it looks good.  The only thing that's
> not clear to me is whether we have agreed we want this to be the
> default behavior?

For what it's worth, I quite like the idea.

(I looked at the patch, and it looks good to me too.)

> Wouldn't it be clearer to build a list with all the sequences owned by
> the tables in istmt.objects, and then call ExecGrantStmt_oids() a
> single time with the big list?

i.e., to hoist most of the istmt_seq initialisation out of the loop,
right? Yes, that makes sense.

-- ams