Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles
Date: 2016-04-13 17:16:02
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaZbdAWP2sEqwaYf9ryr5D5yNZ3wjWEMwC3v6jHj9gqxQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> What I'd like to know is why it rejects that at all. What's the point
>> of having roles you can't SET to?
>
> To use them to GRANT access to other roles, which was the goal of the
> default roles system to begin with.

Well ... yeah. But that doesn't mean it should be impossible to SET
to that role itself. I'm a little worried that could create strange
corner cases.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-04-13 17:17:48 Re: Choosing parallel_degree
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2016-04-13 17:10:02 Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles