Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Ugg, wait a minute. This not only adds %U; it also changes the
> behavior of %u, which I don't think we've agreed on. Also, emitting
> 'none' when not SET ROLE has been done is pretty ugly. I'm back to
> thinking we need to push this out to 9.2 and take more time to think
> about this.
Yeah, I thought what was supposed to be emitted was the value of
current_user, not SQL's weird definition of what SET ROLE means.
regards, tom lane