Re: Standards compliance of SET ROLE / SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION

Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
> On 2/14/20 4:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... A protocol-level message
>> to set session auth could also be possible, of course.

> I'll once again whimper softly and perhaps ineffectually that an
> SQL-exposed equivalent like

> SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION foo WITH RESET COOKIE 'lkjhikuhoihkihlj';

> would seem to suit the same purpose, with the advantage of being
> immediately usable by any kind of front- or middle-end code the
> instant there is a server version that supports it, without having
> to wait for something new at the protocol level to trickle through
> to n different driver implementations.

Yeah, I'm not that thrilled with the idea of a protocol message
that's not equivalent to any SQL-level functionality, either.

But the immediate point here is that I think we could get away with
playing around with SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION's semantics. Or,
seeing that that's just syntactic sugar for "SET session_authorization",
we could invent some new GUCs that allow control over this, rather
than new syntax.

regards, tom lane