* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > That being so, I would consider the idea that the NO bit is a separate > > word rather than run together with the actual privilege name. And given > > that CREATE has all the options default to "NO", there is no need to > > have these options at all in CREATE, is there? > > FWIW, I disagree with that, mainly because I don't think we should cast in > stone the assumption that NO will always be the default for everything we > might invent in the future. Also, the precedent of the existing options > will lead people to expect that they can explicitly say NO-whatever.
Right, and, in fact, not everything is 'NO' by default today anyway.
Further, people might try to say 'NO CONNECTION LIMIT', and while we
might want to try and support that, there might be options where 'NO'
doesn't actually make sense ('NO VALID UNTIL'?).
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
