Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 23:25 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Josh, this isn't a rejection. Both Tom and I asked for more exploration
of the implications of doing as you suggest. Tom has been more helpful
than I was in providing some scenarios that would cause problems. It is
up to you to solve the problems, which is often possible.
OK, well, barring the context issues, what do people think of the idea?

What I was thinking was that this would be a setting on the SET ROLE
statement, such as:


... or similar; I'd need to find an existing keyword which works.

I think this bypasses a lot of the issues which Tom raises, but I'd want
to think about the various permutations some more.
I have added the following TODO:

Allow role-specific ALTER ROLE SET variable settings to be processed
independently of login; SET ROLE does not process role-specific variable


and the attached patch which better documents our current behavior.
I don't think there is an agreed todo item there. We were in the middle
of discussing other ideas and this is the wrong time to have a longer
debate on the topic. We should not squash other ideas by putting this as
a todo item yet.
Since when does a TODO item squash ideas? I didn't chisel the TODO item
in stone; if there is more discussion, someone can update the TODO
item. Leaving stuff dangle around undocumented is the wrong approach.
As it is the TODO items is vague.

Bruce Momjian <>

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 25 of 27 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
postedMar 11, '09 at 9:28p
activeMar 28, '09 at 7:31p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase