Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers