| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation |
| Date: | 2022-06-22 15:15:23 |
| Message-ID: | 3373220.1655910923@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> On 6/22/22 10:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> My immediate guess would be that the SQL committee only intends
>> to deal in SQL role names and therefore SYSTEM_USER is defined
>> to return one of those, but I've not gone looking in the spec
>> to be sure.
> I only have a draft copy, but in SQL 2016 I find relatively thin
> documentation for what SYSTEM_USER is supposed to represent:
> The value specified by SYSTEM_USER is equal to an
> implementation-defined string that represents the
> operating system user who executed the SQL-client
> module that contains the externally-invoked procedure
> whose execution caused the SYSTEM_USER <general value
> specification> to be evaluated.
Huh. Okay, if it's implementation-defined then we can define it
as "whatever auth.c put into authn_id". Objection withdrawn.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-06-22 15:35:02 | Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2022-06-22 15:10:26 | Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation |