Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params?

Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>

From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Greg Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Date: 2009-03-13T03:43:36Z
Lists: 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