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.) </para> <para> I stole the "unifies..." language out of the CREATE ROLE page. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers