2012/7/3 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> writes: >> 2012/7/3 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >>> Um... what should happen if there was a SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION >>> to the portal's userId? This test will think nothing happened. > >> In my test, all the jobs by SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION was cleaned-up... >> It makes nothing happen from viewpoint of users. > > My point is that it seems like a bug that the secContext gets restored > in one case and not the other, depending on which user ID was specified > in SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION. > Sorry, the above description mention about a case when it does not use the marker to distinguish a case to switch user-id from a case not to switch. (I though I was asked the behavior if this logic always switches / restores ids.)
The patch itself works correctly, no regression test failed even though several tests switches user-id using SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
