From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: "bossartn@amazon.com" <bossartn@amazon.com>,
        "pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #14242: Role with a setconfig "role" setting to a nonexistent
 role causes pg_upgrade to fail
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwakeJGHp+4qOZwGtMXV2B4ML69HRdcpx8F9XzKTc725qQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160711223641.1426.86096@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <14434.1468277346@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKFQuwakeJGHp+4qOZwGtMXV2B4ML69HRdcpx8F9XzKTc725qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:03:22 -0400"
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:12:49 -0400
Message-ID: <15324.1468278769@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
>> bossartn@amazon.com <javascript:;> writes:
>>> 2. As foo, execute "alter role foo set role = 'foo'"

> I'm at a loss to understand what this does when it isn't broken.  Assuming
> valid grants does the user become the assigned role upon session startup?

As written it does nothing much.  But "SET ROLE" is defined by the SQL
standard, and what I'd expect this to do is execute an implicit SET ROLE
at login.  Whether that's a good idea is pretty debatable, though, thus
my question whether we'd not be better off to forbid this.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs