Thread: Re: SET LOCAL ROLE NO RESET -- sandbox transactions
On 3/27/19 2:40 AM, Eric Hanson wrote: > What would be the implications of adding a NO RESET clause to SET LOCAL > ROLE? There's a part of this that seems to be a special case of the GUC-protected-by-cookie idea discussed a bit in [1] and [2] (which is still an idea that I like). Regards, -Chap [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/59127E4E.8090705%40anastigmatix.net [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYOz%2BZmOteahrduJCc8RT8GEgC6PNXLwRzJPObmHGaurg%40mail.gmail.com
These seem like much better ideas than mine. :-) Thanks.
Did anything ever come of these ideas? Do you have a sense of the level of community support around these ideas?
Thanks,
Eric
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:23 AM Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> wrote:
On 3/27/19 2:40 AM, Eric Hanson wrote:
> What would be the implications of adding a NO RESET clause to SET LOCAL
> ROLE?
There's a part of this that seems to be a special case of the
GUC-protected-by-cookie idea discussed a bit in [1] and [2]
(which is still an idea that I like).
Regards,
-Chap
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/59127E4E.8090705%40anastigmatix.net
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYOz%2BZmOteahrduJCc8RT8GEgC6PNXLwRzJPObmHGaurg%40mail.gmail.com