On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> What I'd like to know is why it rejects that at all. What's the point
>> of having roles you can't SET to?
>
> To use them to GRANT access to other roles, which was the goal of the
> default roles system to begin with.
Well ... yeah. But that doesn't mean it should be impossible to SET
to that role itself. I'm a little worried that could create strange
corner cases.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
