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.


Also, there is a SESSION_USER, but no SESSION_ROLE. Not sure of the

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.


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!


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to