2012/7/3 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> writes:
>> 2012/7/3 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>>> Um... what should happen if there was a SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION
>>> to the portal's userId? This test will think nothing happened.
>
>> In my test, all the jobs by SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION was cleaned-up...
>> It makes nothing happen from viewpoint of users.
>
> 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.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>