John Scalia <jayknowsunix@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Correct, but my question really is, why is VIEW different from all the other types of objects? It's not really -- GRANT considers all kinds of privilege-grantable relations to be "tables", with the exception of sequences which are different because they have a different set of applicable privileges. If we treated views specially here then we'd also have to treat materialized views and foreign tables as distinct things-to-grant-on, which seems like mostly clutter. The history of ALTER TABLE is an analogy, which I guess you could read as support for either side. Originally PG just had ALTER TABLE and it worked on all relation kinds (for which the ALTER was sensible). We've since grown ALTER VIEW etc, but I don't think their coverage of the ALTER TABLE options is quite complete --- and anyway we still let you say ALTER TABLE, for backwards-compatibility reasons. regards, tom lane
