* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > Tom, if you're watching, are you working on this? I can probably spend
> > some time today on it, if that'd be helpful.
>
> I am not; I was hoping you'd deal with SET ROLE. Is it really much
> different from SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION?
Here's a much better version of the SET ROLE work. I'm reasonably happy
with it. The only parts I don't like are that I had to do some ugly
things in gram.y to avoid making NONE reserved, and I can't seem to see
how to avoid having ROLE be reserved (I understand it was reserved in
SQL99 but not in SQL2003...).
Another issue that I noticed is that when I created a role which didn't
have login permissions, SET ROLE to that role and then created a table,
the 'owner' for the object shown by \d came up NULL. This is almost
certainly because \d is using pg_user which filters out roles which
can't log in. Personally, I disagree with pg_user not having all roles
in it but regardless this needs to be fixed and it'd probably just be
best to update psql to use pg_authid and pg_auth_members, have a \dr,
\dm, etc. I'll try to work on that next unless someone else is already.
Thanks,
Stephen
