On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Amit Langote > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> Is that behavior deliberate? Might it be better to handle the case >> specially much as setting to "none" works? Such as: >> >> ERROR: cannot set to reserved role "pg_signal_backend" >> >> Sorry if I have missed any discussion where such a choice was deliberately >> made. > > I agree that this is a bit surprising. We could do something like the > attached, and switch the error code to ERRCODE_RESERVED_NAME as well > without caring much if a system role exists or not, this does not seem > worth doing a catalog lookup: > =# set role to pg_test; > ERROR: 42939: role "pg_test" is reserved > LOCATION: call_string_check_hook, guc.c:9788 > =# set role to pg_signal_backend; > ERROR: 42939: role "pg_signal_backend" is reserved > LOCATION: call_string_check_hook, guc.c:9788
But is it even intended behavior that you can't set to these reserved roles? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
