Re: Why sequence grant is separated from table?

Achilleas Mantzios <achill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:46:21 +0300



    On 19/06/2013 12:47, Szymon Guz wrote:

    
      On 19 June 2013 11:35, Rural Hunter <ruralhunter@xxxxxxxxx>
        wrote:

        
            I really
              hate the error "permission denied for sequence xxxxx" when
              I grant on a table but forget to grant additionally on the
              related sequence to users. Can the permission of table and
              related sequences be merged?

                  
            I can imagine a situation where you want a
              user to be granted rights on a table, to use sequence with
              curval and nextval functions, but not setval, as it can
              provide some database problems.
            

            What's more, in general, you cannot say which
              sequence is used for which table, if the sequence is not
              owned by the table.
          
        
    Right, there might be cases, when one sequence is used by
      more than one table. Like for instance when the user wishes to
      create a view on a union of two tables, with their IDs included,
      and still those IDs to be guaranteed to be unique across the
      union.

      However, after I dumped a table recently whose sequence is shared
      by another table as wee i noticed this : 

      
    ALTER SEQUENCE vessels_id_seq OWNED BY vessels.id;

    
    Which means that the initial relationship between the
      "creating" table and the sequence is preserved for the whole life
      of the table. This could tempt new users to think that it could be
      meaningful to bind those two in the GRANT.

    
            Which permissions of a table do you want to
              merge with which permissions of sequences?
            

            regards
            Szymon
          
        
    -- 
Achilleas Mantzios