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:
> >
> > SET ROLE special WITH SETTINGS
> >
> > ... 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
> settings
>
> * http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49B82CD7.20802@agliodbs.com
>
> 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.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
