* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > Ugg, wait a minute. This not only adds %U; it also changes the > behavior of %u, which I don't think we've agreed on. Also, emitting > 'none' when not SET ROLE has been done is pretty ugly. I'm back to > thinking we need to push this out to 9.2 and take more time to think > about this.
As I explained in various commit logs and, as I recall, when I first
posted about it, the behavior change for %u could only come about when
someone used 'SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION', which requires superuser
privileges. It makes more sense to me for 'user_name' to be equivilant
to 'SESSION USER', but it's really not that big a deal either way.
Guess I had foolishly thought that people were alright with it by lack
of any comments on it. :( Does anyone else want to chime in on this?
I actually came across that problem because the documentation was poor
regarding exactly what that column meant. If we actually want it to be
"the name that the user first used to authenticate to the system with",
then let's update the documentation accordingly and we can remove those
changes.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
