You asked this question back in March; here's what I suggested
at the time:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Rural Hunter <ruralhunter@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I encounter the same issue often: Granted update/insert to an user but
> forgot to grant it on the related sequence. It's hard to understand that an
> user has write access on table but not on necessary sequences. I think the
> grant on tables should cascade to related sequences. What do you think?
>
Wouldn't it make more sense for the grant on the table to fail with an
appropriate error message? That would solve your problem, and it wouldn't
be making security assumptions. Cascading permissions seems like a recipe
for trouble.
Craig
I suggest is that having the "grant ... on tablename" fail
would serve your purpose. What you want is for it to let you
know you've made a security change that is bound to fail. I
think it would actually be better to have the GRANT fail since
it would notify you that the script or procedure you are using
is incorrect.
Craig
