Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Open 7.3 items

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Open 7.3 items
Date: 2002-08-27 21:11:21
Message-ID: 200208272111.g7RLBLK19354@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > I agree with what Tom said, and understand why he said it.  And I thought you 
> > did, too -- I have apparently misunderstood (again!) the issue.
> > 
> > In the local-enabled scheme, ISTM the majority of users will be local users.  
> > The goal is transparent virtual databases -- at least that's what I consider 
> > the goal.  As far as the user is concerned, the other databases might as well 
> > not even exist -- all they are doing is connecting to their database.  Since 
> > they have to give the database name as part of the connection, it just makes 
> > sense that they should have the closest to default behavior.
> > 
> > In the case of a virtual hosting postmaster, global users would likely be 
> > DBA's, although they might not be.  These users are going to be the 
> > exception, not the rule -- thus a character to tag their 'exceptional' 
> > nature.
> > 
> > You may not even want your virtual host local users to realize that there is 
> > another user by that name.  Thus, the standard notation is the least 
> > intrusive for the very users that need uninstrusive notation.
> 
> Has this behaviour been carried through into GRANT and REVOKE?  If the
> object is transparency for local users, it should be possible in
> database "test" to say "GRANT ... TO fred" and have "fred" understood as
> "fred(at)test".

No changes have been made anywhere except for the username passed by the
client.  All reporting of user names and all administration go by their
full pg_shadow username, so global user dave@ is dave in pg_shadow, and
dave is dave(at)db1 in pg_shadow.  One goal of this patch was a small
footprint.

> If that is the case, then I will support the current position.
> 
> 
> It follows from the objective of transparency that, when reporting a
> user name, local users should be reported without the database suffix,
> i.e., "fred" not "fred(at)test".  Global users should be reported with the
> trailing "@".  This should cause no problem, because we have no
> cross-database communication; it should be impossible for "george(at)dummy"
> to have any connection with database "test".

Nope, none of this is done and I don't think there is a demand to do it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-08-27 21:12:31
Subject: Re: [BUGS] Bug #718: request for improvement of /? to show
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2002-08-27 21:08:16
Subject: Re: Proposed GUC Variable

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group