Re: security label support, part.2

On sön, 2010-08-22 at 15:08 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter_e@gmx.net) wrote:
> > I think there are perfectly good reasons to have different permissions
> > on parent and child tables.  I don't see any reason to monkey around
> > with that.
> 
> Even though the permissions on the child table aren't invovled at all if
> queried through the parent..?  The parent implicitly adds to the set of
> privileges which are granted on the child, but that's not clear at all
> from the permissions visible on the child.  That's principally what I'm
> complaining about here.

Perhaps this is a user interface issue then.  Maybe the fact that a
table is inherited from another one needs to be shown closer to
whereever the permissions are listed.