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:
> > >
> > > 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.
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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
