Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
>> I agree we ought to document this, but we likely need to mention
>> the discrepancy from the spec, too.
> Yep. A little subtle, though. Maybe it is enough to just say that for pg a
> user is a role, which is not the case in the standard?
I did it like this:
*** 15943,15948 ****
--- 15956,15966 ----
functions with the attribute <literal>SECURITY DEFINER</literal>.
In Unix parlance, the session user is the <quote>real user</quote> and
the current user is the <quote>effective user</quote>.
+ <function>current_role</function> and <function>user</function> are
+ synonyms for <function>current_user</function>. (The SQL standard draws
+ a distinction between <function>current_role</function>
+ and <function>current_user</function>, but <productname>PostgreSQL</>
+ does not, since it unifies users and roles into a single kind of entity.)
</para>
<para>
I stole the "unifies..." language out of the CREATE ROLE page.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
