| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params? |
| Date: | 2009-03-13 01:39:54 |
| Message-ID: | 49B9B96A.40501@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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.
--Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-03-13 01:56:29 | Re: Out parameters handling |
| Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-03-13 01:37:19 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1710) |