From: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Reverting SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION command |
Date: | 2002-03-05 14:36:01 |
Message-ID: | 3C84D7D1.5793D92D@redhat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The syntax that comes to mind offhand is
> SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION DEFAULT;
> but perhaps someone has a better idea.
>
Tom,
The SQL standard has already defined what should go there.
That would be CURRENT_USER, so you would have:
SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION CURRENT_USER
Note that CURRENT_USER is _not_ to be affected by a
It remains the same user that was used for the connection.
The SESSION_USER is the one that changes if you issue a SET
SESSION AUTHORIZATION (otherwise is the same as the CURRENT_USER).
P.S.: I did not name those things. Complains to the SQL std committee
:-)
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2002-03-05 15:01:27 | Re: Rep:Re: [BUGS] Encoding Problem? |
Previous Message | mlw | 2002-03-05 14:15:02 | Re: Postgresql backend to perform vacuum automatically |