Pedro Gimeno Fortea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 05/30/2007 06:57:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Because that's how the SQL spec defines that it works.
> Still, is silently ignoring the command the proper action to take when
> the REVOKE is executed by the superuser and not by the grantor?
You want a warning when REVOKE didn't do anything because there was no
prior grant to be revoked? According to the code comments, this was
considered and rejected as "too noisy, as well as inconsistent with the
GRANT case". I can't find the discussion right now, but it would have
probably been in May 2004 or a bit before, because the comment seems to
date from a commit on 1 June 2004.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
