Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
>> 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?

I did it like this:

*** 15943,15948 ****
--- 15956,15966 ----
      functions with the attribute <literal>SECURITY DEFINER</literal>.
      In Unix parlance, the session user is the <quote>real user</quote> and
      the current user is the <quote>effective user</quote>.
+     <function>current_role</function> and <function>user</function> are
+     synonyms for <function>current_user</function>.  (The SQL standard draws
+     a distinction between <function>current_role</function>
+     and <function>current_user</function>, but <productname>PostgreSQL</>
+     does not, since it unifies users and roles into a single kind of entity.)

I stole the "unifies..." language out of the CREATE ROLE page.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to