Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated

* Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost  writes:
> > > Tom, if you're watching, are you working on this?  I can probably spend
> > > some time today on it, if that'd be helpful.
> > 
> > I am not; I was hoping you'd deal with SET ROLE.  Is it really much
> > different from SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION?
> 
> Here's a much better version of the SET ROLE work.  I'm reasonably happy
> with it.  The only parts I don't like are that I had to do some ugly
> things in gram.y to avoid making NONE reserved, and I can't seem to see
> how to avoid having ROLE be reserved (I understand it was reserved in
> SQL99 but not in SQL2003...).

Updated yet again, fixing a bug in the prior one that caused it to not
work properly, and some additional things:

Added a 'has_role' function that's basically is_member_of_role for the
masses.  Updated information_schema to use has_role for permissions
checks in addition to the straight '=' owner-check.  Also fixed up
enabled_roles and applicable_roles views.  This depends somewhat on part
of my other patch where I modified is_member_of_role to always return
true for superuser().  If that doesn't end up being done then we'll need
to add some explicit superuser() checks in the SetCurrentRoleId() logic.

	Thanks,

		Stephen