Peter Eisentraut writes:
> We currently don't represent the sequence privileges in the information
> schema. We could perhaps do a subset of them.
> In the SQL standard, there is only the USAGE privilege, and its only
> purpose (AFAICT) is to allow the NEXT VALUE FOR expression.
> PostgreSQL's n
On Sat, 18 May 2002 19:45:30 -0400
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since the sequence-specific operations are really just function calls,
> > maybe it should be:
> > SELECT: read sequence as a table
> > EXECUTE: all sequence-specific ope
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> what we really have is:
>>
>> SELECT: read sequence as a table
>> UPDATE: all sequence-specific operations.
> Since the sequence-specific operations are really just function calls,
> maybe it should be:
> SELECT: read sequence a
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "SELECT" still means what it says: the ability to do a select from
> the sequence, which lets you see the sequence parameters. So what
> we really have is:
>
> SELECT: read sequence as a table
> UPDATE: all sequence-specific operations.
>
Since the sequence-spe
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But shouldn't it more ideally be
> currval: SELECT
> nextval: SELECT + UPDATE
> setval: UPDATE
> because nextval allows you to infer the content of the sequence? (Cf.
> UPDATE tab1 SET a = b requires SELECT + UPDATE on tab1.)
One o
