"Joe Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Too late ;-). I just finished ripping out the unneeded parts and
>> applying.
> Thanks! I take it I still need to do the documentation though ;)
I put in a few words in func.sgml, but feel free to improve on it.
regards, tom l
"Joe Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll rework the patch per the above and resend.
Too late ;-). I just finished ripping out the unneeded parts and
applying.
I made a few minor changes too, mostly removing unnecessary code
(you don't need to call nameout, everyone else just uses NameStr
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Could we make the assumption that table names in catalogs
>> will be of type 'name'?
> I wouldn't want to guarantee it for the information schema.
Your objections are not without merit, and in the interest of bringing
this thing to closure I'll con
"Joe Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the concern that the name-based variants of the function should be called
> like:
>select has_table_privilege(current_user, pg_class, 'insert');
> or
>select has_table_privilege(current_user, "My Quoted Relname", 'insert');
It'd be reall
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since these functions will primarily be used in building a sort of
> information schema and for querying system catalogs, we should use the
> approach that is or will be used there: character type values contain the
> table name already case-adjusted
> What if I rename the get_seq_name function and move it to
> backend/utils/adt/name.c (and of course change the references to it in
> sequence.c)? Actually, now I'm wondering why nameout doesn't
> downcase and
> truncate.
Because identifiers can be double quoted if you feel like preserving case
"Joe Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wasn't quite sure if there are changes I can/should make to
> has_table_privilege based on this discussion.
My feeling is that the name-based variants of has_table_privilege should
perform downcasing and truncation of the supplied strings before trying
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO, nextval() isn't the greatest interface in the world. I do like the
> alternative (deprecated?) syntax sequence.nextval() because of the
> notational resemblence to OO.
Try "nonexistent". I too would like a notation like that, because it
would
