On 1/7/06, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen wrote:
> > The above table seem bit messy, but I see it as much easier to explain
> > to somebody.
>
> I am confused about your list above, so I can't see how that would be
> easy to explain.
Easy as in "use GRANT USAGE, forget about rest". You are confused
because you know the old way and look them together.
I would have liked to say "the rest are for fine-grained access control",
but with Tom's final proposal, the explanation would continue "SELECT,
UPDATE are for backwards compatibility".
Attached is a patch that fixes tablename->seqname and puts USAGE
as first in list to show it's the preferred way. I think it should
be mentioned somewhere explicitly, but I cant find proper place for
it. In the Compatibility section for GRANT?
--
marko