From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: documentation fix for SET ROLE |
Date: | 2021-03-11 16:08:47 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYSKfy3hEw1G6u6LMfWxVXWb50nC7DhqX1r4zUembuQOQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 7:58 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
wrote:
> I think we should *not* document that under "server configuration".
> This is confusing and will lead people to think that a role is
> a configuration parameter. But you cannot add
>
> role = myrole
>
> to "postgresql.conf". A role is not a GUC.
>
> I think that the place to document this is
> doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_role.sgml.
>
Good point. I agree that another syntax specification should be added to
ALTER ROLE/DATABASE cover this instead of shoe-horning it into the "SET
configuration_parameter" syntax specification even though the syntax is
nearly identical. It is indeed a different mechanic that just happens to
share a similar syntax. (On that note, does "FROM CURRENT" work with
"ROLE"?)
I'm a bit indifferent on the wording for RESET ROLE, though it should
probably mirror whatever wording we use for GUCs since this behaves like
one even if it isn't one technically.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2021-03-11 16:09:52 | Re: pg_amcheck contrib application |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2021-03-11 16:06:36 | Re: Autovacuum on partitioned table (autoanalyze) |