2012/7/4 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
>>> My point is that it seems like a bug that the secContext gets restored
>>> in one case and not the other, depending on which user ID was specified
>>> in SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION.
>>>
>> Sorry, the above description mention about a case when it does not use
>> the marker to distinguish a case to switch user-id from a case not to switch.
>> (I though I was asked the behavior if this logic always switches /
>> restores ids.)
>>
>> The patch itself works correctly, no regression test failed even though
>> several tests switches user-id using SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION.
>
> I don't believe that proves anything. There are lots of things that
> aren't tested by the regression tests, and there's no guarantee that
> any you've added cover all bases, either. We always treat user-ID and
> security context as a unit; you haven't given any reason why this case
> should be handled differently, and I bet it shouldn't.
>
This patch always handles user-id and security context as a unit.
In case when it was switched, then it shall be always restored.
And, in case when it was not switched, then it shall never be restored.
Was my explanation confusing?
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>