From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles |
Date: | 2016-04-14 01:42:09 |
Message-ID: | 570EF571.7090206@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Stephen,
On 2016/04/14 2:10, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp <javascript:;>> writes:
>>> I observe this:
>>
>>> postgres=# SET ROLE TO NONE;
>>> SET
>>> postgres=# SET ROLE TO nonexistent;
>>> ERROR: role "nonexistent" does not exist
>>> postgres=# SET ROLE TO pg_signal_backend;
>>> ERROR: invalid value for parameter "role": "pg_signal_backend"
>>
>>> Is that behavior deliberate? Might it be better to handle the case
>>> specially much as setting to "none" works?
>
> I don't think it makes sense to say the role doesn't exist when it does, in
> fact, exist.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that we should error with "<reserved-role>
does not exist" on such SET ROLE attempts. Like Michael, I was a bit
surprised to find that it output "invalid value for parameter".
So, if consensus emerges that we should indeed disallow SET ROLE
<reserved-role-spec>, I would +1 Michael's proposed GUC_check_err*()-based
patch.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2016-04-14 01:44:52 | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
Previous Message | Chapman Flack | 2016-04-14 01:30:02 | Safe to apply HeapTupleHeaderGetDatum to a tuple from syscache? |