Re: Strange inconsistency using psql

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От John Scalia
Тема Re: Strange inconsistency using psql
Дата
Msg-id 8C7A5C93-FBA2-49A7-AF59-1314585F67A0@gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Strange inconsistency using psql  (Keith <keith@keithf4.com>)
Ответы Re: Strange inconsistency using psql  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-admin
Correct, but my question really is, why is VIEW different from all the other types of objects? Shouldn’t the word VIEW also be an optional qualifier for the name of the object? Inconsistency strikes me as an oversight.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 18, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Keith <keith@keithf4.com> wrote:




On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:29 PM John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com> wrote:
I had to do some privilege assignments this morning on a bunch of tables, sequences, functions, and views. On all of these object, I generally try to use a command like:

GRANT all ON TABLE x TO new_user;

Where TABLE is either that object or a SEQUENCE or FUNCTION. These all worked perfectly for me. What did not work was specifying that the object was a VIEW. The system would spit out a syntax error at the object’s name being specified, however, if I omitted the word VIEW, and not specify the type of object, then the GRANT succeeded.

Was this intentional behavior, or is the grammar slightly amiss? All the other types of objects worked perfectly with this style of command.

Jay

Sent from my iPad


There is no VIEW clause to the GRANT command. The TABLE clause is actually optional in the command when setting privileges on tables or views. And generally you can use the privileges used on tables when setting privileges on views.


Keith

В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Keith
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Strange inconsistency using psql
Следующее
От: Pepe TD Vo
Дата:
Сообщение: backup script error with could not connect to database