Tom, et al, Looks like Andrew's GSoC student has gotten busy at his new job, so I'm back on to this and hope to have a new patch ready to go for the Sept. commitfest. If anyone's interested in helping out, feel free to drop me a line.
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It occurs to me that there's something else to be thought about here.
> Given a table against which some per-column GRANTs/REVOKEs have been
> issued, what is the proper privilege state for a newly added column?
I'll look over what the spec has to say about it. I'm not sure which
way really makes the most sense. I'm tempted to say that if you've
started doing per-column GRANTs/REVOKEs then you should be on the hook
for explicitly saying what the permissions on the new column should be,
with the default being no permissions. As far as I'm concerned, that
doesn't break backwards compatibility (you've started using the new
grant/revoke syntax by this point already), it just might be breaking
some backwards expectations. :)
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
