From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "CURRENT_ROLE" is not documented |
Date: | 2017-05-06 18:36:11 |
Message-ID: | 28362.1494095771@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
>> I agree we ought to document this, but we likely need to mention
>> the discrepancy from the spec, too.
> Yep. A little subtle, though. Maybe it is enough to just say that for pg a
> user is a role, which is not the case in the standard?
I did it like this:
*** 15943,15948 ****
--- 15956,15966 ----
functions with the attribute <literal>SECURITY DEFINER</literal>.
In Unix parlance, the session user is the <quote>real user</quote> and
the current user is the <quote>effective user</quote>.
+ <function>current_role</function> and <function>user</function> are
+ synonyms for <function>current_user</function>. (The SQL standard draws
+ a distinction between <function>current_role</function>
+ and <function>current_user</function>, but <productname>PostgreSQL</>
+ does not, since it unifies users and roles into a single kind of entity.)
</para>
<para>
I stole the "unifies..." language out of the CREATE ROLE page.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2017-05-06 18:50:16 | Re: SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-05-06 17:42:09 | Re: "CURRENT_ROLE" is not documented |