Hi Kim. Here's what I think:
>The topic on the REVOKE statement says,
>"You can revoke privileges for an object if you are the owner of the object or the database owner."
>Would the statement that "Views, triggers, and constraints operate with the permissions of the owner of the view, trigger, or constraint" add anything to this statement, or would it be redundant? Perhaps these things are not actually objects?
I don't think that the additional sentence would add information. The existing sentence seems accurate and concise to me.
>I'm also wondering if there is a difference between "privileges" and "permissions". Currently, the topic "Using SQL standard authorization" talks about privileges in its first sections but then switches to the term "permissions" for the subsection on views, triggers, and constraints. Is there a real distinction here or should we say "privileges" throughout? Or does "privileges" apply to objects and "permissions" to these other things?
The terms "privileges" and "permissions" are synonyms. I can see that switching back and forth between the two terms confuses readers.
>The GRANT statement topic currently says, "You can grant privileges to database objects that you are authorized to grant." This seems a bit circular (as well as ungrammatical). Would it make sense to use the same language as for REVOKE, that is, "You can grant privileges on an object if you are the owner of the object or the database owner"?
I agree that the current statement sounds pretty goofy. I think that your proposed re-wording is clear, accurate, and better. We may need to revisit this topic if we ever implement the 'WITH GRANT OPTION" clause, but I wouldn't worry about that possibility right now. Thanks.