psql> SELECT CURRENT_ROLE;
current_user -- not a typo, it really says "current_user"
Not as of HEAD ;-)
Good:-) I was connecting to a 9.6.2 server from a pg10dev client.
Is there a special reason why it does not appear in the documentation?
Oversight, evidently.
Ok.
Also, there is a SESSION_USER, but no SESSION_ROLE. Not sure of the
rationale.
SQL standard says so, basically. The standard draws a hard line between
"role" and "user", and says that only "users" can be the initiators of
sessions, so that the initial privilege identifier is always a user name
not a role name; hence no need for SESSION_ROLE.
Hmmm... why not. I'm in the pg context where a USER is a ROLE, as you
point out below.
PG doesn't draw such a hard line; for us, roles and users are the same
kind of entity, with the distinction being a can-login privilege that's
really only a minor attribute. So I think it's sensible for us to
treat these functions as synonyms.
Yep.
I agree we ought to document this, but we likely need to mention
the discrepancy from the spec, too.
Yep. A little subtle, though. Maybe it is enough to just say that for pg a
user is a role, which is not the case in the standard?
Thanks for the explanation!
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
