On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:15:01PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > there is a function session_user() already > > But it doesn't do this. Are you saying that I should add a > session_user(int)? > > Regardless of the merits of the proposed feature, the function "session_user" is SQL-defined and should not be modified or enhanced. I could see "calling_role()" being useful - it returns the same value as "current_role" normally and in security invoker functions while in a security definer function it would return whatever current_role would have returned if the function was a security invoker (i.e., the role that the system will put back into effect once the security definer function returns). Introducing the concept of a stack at the SQL level here seems, at first glance, to be over-complicating things. David J.