Amit, * Amit Langote (langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > On 2016/04/14 2:10, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp <javascript:;>> writes: > >>> I observe this: > >> > >>> postgres=# SET ROLE TO NONE; > >>> SET > >>> postgres=# SET ROLE TO nonexistent; > >>> ERROR: role "nonexistent" does not exist > >>> postgres=# SET ROLE TO pg_signal_backend; > >>> ERROR: invalid value for parameter "role": "pg_signal_backend" > >> > >>> Is that behavior deliberate? Might it be better to handle the case > >>> specially much as setting to "none" works? > > > > I don't think it makes sense to say the role doesn't exist when it does, in > > fact, exist. > > Sorry, I didn't mean to say that we should error with "<reserved-role> > does not exist" on such SET ROLE attempts. Like Michael, I was a bit > surprised to find that it output "invalid value for parameter".
No problem. I realized that when I read your email, but when I was added to the CC (which results in the email showing up on my phone, where I had been responding from earlier), I only saw the subset which was quoted. Your comments make more sense now that I've caught up on -hackers email. > So, if consensus emerges that we should indeed disallow SET ROLE > <reserved-role-spec>, I would +1 Michael's proposed GUC_check_err*()-based > patch. I've not looked it over carefully, but I generally agree with improving the error messages. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
