Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params?
Date: 2009-03-15 21:47:14
Message-ID: 49BD7762.2060908@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> What I want to be able to do is to set different bunches of resource
>> management settings for various non-login inherited roles, and be able
>> to choose profiles via a SET ROLE. The reason to do this, btw, instead
>> of defining various login roles, is that different login roles can't
>> share the same connection pool.
>
> The question is why this should be tied to SET ROLE, which already has
> well defined semantics that don't include any such behavior.

Mostly because we don't have anywhere else to hang a "settings profile"
than ROLEs. And currently, we can define settings with roles; the fact
that those settings materially only apply to login roles and not to
non-login roles could even be seen as inconsistent.

--Josh

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2009-03-15 21:50:05 Re: hstore improvements?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-03-15 21:45:33 Re: Prepping to break every past release...