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.
regards, tom lane
