Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params?

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 23:25 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
> 
> I have added the following TODO:
> 
>     Allow role-specific ALTER ROLE SET variable settings to be processed
>     independently of login; SET ROLE does not process role-specific variable
>     settings
>     
>         * http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49B82CD7.20802@agliodbs.com 
> 
> and the attached patch which better documents our current behavior.

I don't think there is an agreed todo item there. We were in the middle
of discussing other ideas and this is the wrong time to have a longer
debate on the topic. We should not squash other ideas by putting this as
a todo item yet.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support