Re: Allow placeholders in ALTER ROLE w/o superuser - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: Allow placeholders in ALTER ROLE w/o superuser
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdu+6eNT1m_LTH52Q4teqogLPLDj-CmwXC8t7nf32ree-g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allow placeholders in ALTER ROLE w/o superuser  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Allow placeholders in ALTER ROLE w/o superuser
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 8:18 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > I couldn't find any discussion of the idea of adding "(s)" to the
> > variable name in order to mark the variable userset in the catalog, and
> > I have to admit I find it a bit strange.  Are we really agreed that
> > that's the way to proceed?
>
> I hadn't been paying close attention to this thread, sorry.
>
> I agree that that seems like a very regrettable choice,
> especially if you anticipate having to bump catversion anyway.

I totally understand that this change requires a catversion bump.
I've reflected this in the commit message.

> Better to add a bool column to the catalog.

What about adding a boolean array to the pg_db_role_setting? So,
pg_db_role_setting would have the following columns.
 * setdatabase oid
 * setrole oid
 * setconfig text[]
 * setuser bool[]

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: ANY_VALUE aggregate