2012/7/3 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> writes:
>> 2012/7/3 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> Um... what should happen if there was a SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION
>>> to the portal's userId?  This test will think nothing happened.
>
>> In my test, all the jobs by SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION was cleaned-up...
>> It makes nothing happen from viewpoint of users.
>
> My point is that it seems like a bug that the secContext gets restored
> in one case and not the other, depending on which user ID was specified
> in SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION.
>
Sorry, the above description mention about a case when it does not use
the marker to distinguish a case to switch user-id from a case not to switch.
(I though I was asked the behavior if this logic always switches /
restores ids.)

The patch itself works correctly, no regression test failed even though
several tests switches user-id using SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION.

Thanks,
-- 
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>

In response to

• Re: User-Id Tracking when Portal was started at 2012-07-03 16:08:47 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: User-Id Tracking when Portal was started at 2012-07-04 19:44:41 from Robert Haas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2012-07-03 16:48:51
	Subject: Re: enhanced error fields
Previous:	From: Daniel Farina	Date: 2012-07-03 16:37:08
	Subject: Re: xlog filename formatting functions in recovery