| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params? |
| Date: | 2009-03-27 17:32:44 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070903271032j95b02a8l957175c205ef4509@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think this is way over-engineered. All we really need here is a
>> command along the lines of RESET ALL AS CURRENT USER that gives every
>> GUC the value it would have had if you logged in under the current
>> user's account. Simple, clean, no new keywords.
>
> Doesn't do anything for autovacuum though...
Nope, but I think that can be solved separately.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-03-27 17:46:01 | Re: 8.4 open items list |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-27 17:31:43 | Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params? |