On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 7:23 PM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2022-11-15 at 12:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > If anyone else wants to comment, or if either of those people want to > > comment further, please speak up soon. > > Did you have some thoughts on: > > https://postgr.es/m/a41d606daaaa03b629c2ef0ed274ae3b04a2c266.ca...@j-davis.com
I mean, I think what we were discussing there could be done, but it's not the approach I like best. That's partly because that was just a back-of-the-envelope sketch of an idea, not a real proposal for something with a clear implementation path. But I think the bigger reason is that, in my opinion, this proposal is more generally useful, because it takes no position on why you wish to disallow SET ROLE. You can just disallow it in some cases and allow it in others, and that's fine. That proposal targets a specific use case, which may make it a better solution to that particular problem, but it makes it unworkable as a solution to any other problem, I believe. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
