Re: Strange inconsistency using psql

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Keith
Тема Re: Strange inconsistency using psql
Дата
Msg-id CAHw75vt=iodvVhKb+EzGCwXBzG2og6bdMzQV7HJSeKw7meriow@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Strange inconsistency using psql  (John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Strange inconsistency using psql  (John Scalia <jayknowsunix@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-admin


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: John Scalia
Дата:
Сообщение: Strange inconsistency using psql
Следующее
От: John Scalia
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Strange inconsistency using psql