Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 23:25 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > > > > > Josh, this isn't a rejection. Both Tom and I asked for more exploration > > > > of the implications of doing as you suggest. Tom has been more helpful > > > > than I was in providing some scenarios that would cause problems. It is > > > > up to you to solve the problems, which is often possible. > > > > > > OK, well, barring the context issues, what do people think of the idea? > > > > > > What I was thinking was that this would be a setting on the SET ROLE > > > statement, such as: > > > > > > SET ROLE special WITH SETTINGS > > > > > > ... or similar; I'd need to find an existing keyword which works. > > > > > > I think this bypasses a lot of the issues which Tom raises, but I'd want > > > to think about the various permutations some more. > > > > I have added the following TODO: > > > > Allow role-specific ALTER ROLE SET variable settings to be processed > > independently of login; SET ROLE does not process role-specific variable > > settings > > > > * > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49b82cd7.20...@agliodbs.com > > > > and the attached patch which better documents our current behavior. > > I don't think there is an agreed todo item there. We were in the middle > of discussing other ideas and this is the wrong time to have a longer > debate on the topic. We should not squash other ideas by putting this as > a todo item yet.
Since when does a TODO item squash ideas? I didn't chisel the TODO item in stone; if there is more discussion, someone can update the TODO item. Leaving stuff dangle around undocumented is the wrong approach. As it is the TODO items is vague. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
