Tom,
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 3:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > Tom/Nathan, do you have any further suggestions here?
>
> My recommendation is to revert this feature. I do not see any
> way that we won't regret it as a poor design.
I have carefully noted your concerns regarding the USER SET patch that
I've committed. It's clear that you have strong convictions about
this, particularly in relation to your plan of storing the setter role
OID in pg_db_role_setting.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge the significance of your
perspective and I respect that you have a different view on this
matter. Although I have not yet had the opportunity to see the
feasibility of your approach, I am open to understanding it further.
Anyway, I don't want to do anything counter-productive. So, I've
taken the decision to revert the USER SET patch for the time being.
I'm looking forward to continuing working with you on this subject for v17.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov