From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "is_superuser" parameter creates inconsistencies |
Date: | 2003-08-17 03:22:41 |
Message-ID: | 200308170322.h7H3MfB03019@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Has this been addressed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Presumably, the "is_superuser" parameter was intended to make the updating
> > of psql's prompt more accurate when SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION is used.
> > However, if the prompt is customized to include the user name (%n), then
> > the prompt changes to reflect the real superuser status, but does not
> > change the user name. I guess we need to pass "session_user" as well.
>
> Seems reasonable. IIRC the only addition needed to the server code is
> to set a flag in the variable's GUC entry.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-08-17 03:33:14 | Re: [PATCH] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Why READ ONLY transactions? |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2003-08-17 02:48:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Are we losing momentum? |