Robert Haas <> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Tom Lane <> wrote:
>> We might need to redesign the GUC-propagation mechanism so it sends
>> the various internal representations of GUC values, not the user-visible
>> strings.

> That would probably be better in the long run, but I'm not keen to do
> it in a back-branch under time pressure.

Definitely a valid objection.  But before assuming that this issue is
limited to SET ROLE, it'd be wise to push a bit on the other GUCs with
catalog-dependent values, to see if there are any others we need to
worry about.  I"m okay with a narrow solution if SET ROLE really is
the only problem, but at this stage I'm not convinced of that.

                        regards, tom lane

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

Reply via email to