Re: Extension ownership and misuse of SET ROLE/SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> On 13 Feb 2020, at 23:55, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Given the current behavior of SET ROLE and SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION,
>>> I don't actually see any way that we could get these features to
>>> play together.

> The recent work on pg_dump reminded me about this thread, AFAICT this was never
> addressed? Are you including it in the current line of work (if so, sorry for
> missing it in the threads) or should I take a stab at it?

No, I'm not working on this --- I'd kind of forgotten about it.
People didn't seem to like the idea of loosening the requirements
for SET ROLE, but I'm not sure how to solve the extension-ownership
problem without it.

> This patch still seems relevant for back-branches, but starting at 14 this time.

I think the appropriate thing to do is stick your patch into all branches
for the moment. We can remove it again whenever we invent a fix for the
problem.

regards, tom lane