On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:41:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 01:06:09PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> However, it almost seems like this would become a piece of the > >> other per-database-user stuff we'd like to do, like "local > >> superuser". > > > I'm not sure that's the same. The thing about superuser as it > > exists now is the ability to write to the filesystem, which means > > that there's no boundary really possible. > > Yeah. ISTM the correct generalization is "per-user per-database > default GUC settings", which has nothing to do with superuserness.
This sounds like a TODO for 8.3. What wrinkles might this involve? Offhand, I'm thinking that it would touch the inheritance stuff that roles have. Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
