On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:41:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 01:06:09PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> However, it almost seems like this would become a piece of the
> >> other per-database-user stuff we'd like to do, like "local
> >> superuser".
>
> > I'm not sure that's the same. The thing about superuser as it
> > exists now is the ability to write to the filesystem, which means
> > that there's no boundary really possible.
>
> Yeah. ISTM the correct generalization is "per-user per-database
> default GUC settings", which has nothing to do with superuserness.
This sounds like a TODO for 8.3. What wrinkles might this involve?
Offhand, I'm thinking that it would touch the inheritance stuff that
roles have.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
