* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Well, that just doesn't seem useful to me in the real world. If I were
> using this, I would expect it to emit a real user name that matches the
> currently applied permissions checking. All the time.
I wouldn't have ever thought to use %U w/o %u, to be honest. Unless I'm
missing something though, this change would just be emitting what
show_session_authorization() returns when show_role() returns 'none'.
That's certainly fine by me.
> "show role" does
> what it does because the SQL standard says so, not because anybody
> outside the standards committee thinks that's a sane definition.
Guess it actually makes some sense to me.
Thanks,
Stephen