On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Ah, so it does. Sounds like you win. Have we a patch implementing >> the sounds-like-its-agreed change, then? > > Patch attached, rebased to current master.
Ugg, wait a minute. This not only adds %U; it also changes the behavior of %u, which I don't think we've agreed on. Also, emitting 'none' when not SET ROLE has been done is pretty ugly. I'm back to thinking we need to push this out to 9.2 and take more time to think about this. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
