Hi Stephen, On 2016/04/14 2:10, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp <javascript:;>> writes: >>> I observe this: >> >>> postgres=# SET ROLE TO NONE; >>> SET >>> postgres=# SET ROLE TO nonexistent; >>> ERROR: role "nonexistent" does not exist >>> postgres=# SET ROLE TO pg_signal_backend; >>> ERROR: invalid value for parameter "role": "pg_signal_backend" >> >>> Is that behavior deliberate? Might it be better to handle the case >>> specially much as setting to "none" works? > > I don't think it makes sense to say the role doesn't exist when it does, in > fact, exist.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that we should error with "<reserved-role> does not exist" on such SET ROLE attempts. Like Michael, I was a bit surprised to find that it output "invalid value for parameter". So, if consensus emerges that we should indeed disallow SET ROLE <reserved-role-spec>, I would +1 Michael's proposed GUC_check_err*()-based patch. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
