Re: Interest in a SECURITY DEFINER function current_user stack access mechanism?

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:15:01PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > there is a function session_user() already
>
> But it doesn't do this. Are you saying that I should add a
> session_user(int)?
>
>
​Regardless of the merits of the proposed feature, the function
"session_user" is SQL-defined and should not be modified or enhanced.

I could see "calling_role()" being useful - it returns the same value as
"current_role" normally and in security invoker functions while in a
security definer function it would return whatever current_role would have
returned if the function was a security invoker (i.e., the role that the
system will put back into effect once the security definer function
returns).

Introducing the concept of a stack at the SQL level here seems, at first
glance, to be over-complicating things.

David J.