| From: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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 16:48:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAAWbhmgLnMTrC6DcS2b_xNOAZCCoHzV4Y95dYPnow19idgFemQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 9:26 AM Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6/22/22 11:35, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 8:10 AM Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> Why would you want to do it differently than
> SessionUserId/OuterUserId/CurrentUserId? It is analogous, no?
Like I said, now there are two different sources of truth, and
additional code to sync the two, and two different APIs to set what
should be a single write-once attribute. But if SystemUser is instead
derived from authn_id, like what's just been proposed with
`method:authn_id`, I think there's a better argument for separating
the two.
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-06-22 16:51:04 | Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2022-06-22 16:32:38 | Re: SYSTEM_USER reserved word implementation |