Re: documentation fix for SET ROLE

On 3/12/21, 6:35 AM, "Laurenz Albe" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-03-12 at 10:16 +0100, I wrote:
>> After sleeping on it, I have come to think that it is excessive to write
>> so much documentation for a feature that is that unimportant.
>>
>> It takes some effort to come up with a good use case for it.
>>
>> I think we can add a few lines to ALTER ROLE, perhaps ALTER DATABASE
>> (although I don't see what sense it could make to set that on the database level),
>> and briefly explain the difference between RESET ROLE and SET ROLE NONE.
>>
>> I think adding too much detail will harm - anyone who needs to know the
>> exact truth can resort to the implementation.
>>
>> I'll try to come up with a proposal later.
>
> Attached is my idea of the documentation change.
>
> I think that ALTER DATABASE ... SET ROLE can remain undocumented, because
> I cannot imagine that it could be useful.
>
> I am unsure if specifying "role" in a libpq connect string might be
> worth documenting. Can you think of a use case?

My main goal of this thread is to get the RESET ROLE documentation
fixed. I don't have a terribly strong opinion on documenting these
special uses of "role". I lean in favor of adding it, but I wouldn't
be strongly opposed to simply leaving it out for now. But if we're
going to add it, I think we might as well add it everywhere.

Nathan