| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG 18 release notes draft committed |
| Date: | 2025-06-04 22:37:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1075844.1749076677@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Is this covering the case of executing at the end of an outer SQL command
> (thus not deferred) that contains volatile DML functions that temporarily
> change current_user within the function?
Not quite. I think that a non-deferred AFTER trigger would ordinarily
run as the same user that was active when we queued the event, earlier
in the same statement --- but it's possible that some function that
runs in between would change the active role in a non-temporary way.
Doing that will now have different effects than it did before.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2025-06-04 22:40:11 | Re: PG 18 release notes draft committed |
| Previous Message | MARK CALLAGHAN | 2025-06-04 22:26:54 | Re: postmaster uses more CPU in 18 beta1 with io_method=io_uring |