> 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.
--Josh