Re: Password sub-process ...

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Uh, we've *never* supported "two bruce users" ...
> >
> > > He was being tricky by having different passwords for the same user on
> > > each database, so one user couldn't get into the other database, even
> > > though it was the same name.
> >
> > But the system didn't realize they were two different users. (Try
> > dropping just one of them.) And what if they happened to choose the
> > same password? I think this is a fragile kluge not a supported feature.
> >
> > > The question is whether using those secondary
> > > passwords is widespread enough that I need to get that into the code
> > > too. It was pretty confusing for users, so I am hesitant to re-add it,
> > > but I hate for Marc to lose functionality he had in the past.
> >
> > I'd like to think of a better answer, not put back that same kluge.
> > Ideas anyone?
>
> Agreed. A clear kludge. I just feel guilty because I removed it.

don't feel guilty ... it *wasn't* the nicest implementation of a feature,
but it was definitely useful ...