On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 23:25 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > > > Josh, this isn't a rejection. Both Tom and I asked for more exploration > > > of the implications of doing as you suggest. Tom has been more helpful > > > than I was in providing some scenarios that would cause problems. It is > > > up to you to solve the problems, which is often possible. > > > > OK, well, barring the context issues, what do people think of the idea? > > > > What I was thinking was that this would be a setting on the SET ROLE > > statement, such as: > > > > SET ROLE special WITH SETTINGS > > > > ... or similar; I'd need to find an existing keyword which works. > > > > I think this bypasses a lot of the issues which Tom raises, but I'd want > > to think about the various permutations some more. > > I have added the following TODO: > > Allow role-specific ALTER ROLE SET variable settings to be processed > independently of login; SET ROLE does not process role-specific variable > settings > > * > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49b82cd7.20...@agliodbs.com > > and the attached patch which better documents our current behavior.
I don't think there is an agreed todo item there. We were in the middle of discussing other ideas and this is the wrong time to have a longer debate on the topic. We should not squash other ideas by putting this as a todo item yet. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
