Re: Extension ownership and misuse of SET ROLE/SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extension ownership and misuse of SET ROLE/SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 32076.1589902497@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extension ownership and misuse of SET ROLE/SET SESSIONAUTHORIZATION (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>) |
Ответы |
Re: Extension ownership and misuse of SET ROLE/SET SESSIONAUTHORIZATION
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes: >> On 13 Feb 2020, at 23:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Given the current behavior of SET ROLE and SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION, >> I don't actually see any way that we could get these features to >> play together. > Is this being worked on for the 13 cycle such that it should be an open item? I didn't have it on my list, but yeah maybe we should add it to the "pre-existing issues" list. >> The quick-and-dirty answer is to disallow these switches from being >> used together in pg_restore, and I'm inclined to think maybe we should >> do that in the back branches. > ..or should we do this for v13 and back-branches and leave fixing it for 14? > Considering the potential invasiveness of the fix I think the latter sounds > rather appealing at this point in the cycle. Something like the attached > should be enough IIUC. pg_dump and pg_dumpall also have that switch no? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: