Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> We might need to redesign the GUC-propagation mechanism so it sends
>> the various internal representations of GUC values, not the user-visible
>> strings.
> That would probably be better in the long run, but I'm not keen to do
> it in a back-branch under time pressure.
Definitely a valid objection. But before assuming that this issue is
limited to SET ROLE, it'd be wise to push a bit on the other GUCs with
catalog-dependent values, to see if there are any others we need to
worry about. I"m okay with a narrow solution if SET ROLE really is
the only problem, but at this stage I'm not convinced of that.
regards, tom lane
