Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params?
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200903122343.37053.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params? (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 12 March 2009 21:39:54 Josh Berkus wrote: > > Josh, this isn't a rejection. Both Tom and I asked for more exploration > > of the implications of doing as you suggest. Tom has been more helpful > > than I was in providing some scenarios that would cause problems. It is > > up to you to solve the problems, which is often possible. > > OK, well, barring the context issues, what do people think of the idea? > > What I was thinking was that this would be a setting on the SET ROLE > statement, such as: > > SET ROLE special WITH SETTINGS > > ... or similar; I'd need to find an existing keyword which works. > > I think this bypasses a lot of the issues which Tom raises, but I'd want > to think about the various permutations some more. > How bad of an idea would it be to split set session authorization to be privilege specific, and set role to focus on configiuration? -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: