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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_pwd trigger to be removed

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_pwd trigger to be removed
Date: 2000-03-08 00:22:14
Message-ID: 22865.952474934@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Because of the problems that were pointed out, I'm inclined to remove the
> pg_pwd updating trigger again.

Actually, what I'd like to see is a fix that makes the trigger robust.
Maybe that's too much work for 7.0.

If we had a robust solution for this problem, then we could apply the
same method to export a flat-file equivalent of pg_database, which could
be read during backend startup.  That would allow us to get rid of some
incredibly grotty (and not 100% reliable) code that tries to read
pg_database before the transaction management code has been fired up :-(

> My new take on the situation is actually that there shouldn't be a reason
> to tinker with the systems catalogs period.

Maybe so, but we still could make good use of an end-of-transaction
trigger to update pg_pwd from pg_shadow.  Right now, rollback of a
pg_shadow update doesn't really work right even if you did it via
CREATE/ALTER USER.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-03-08 00:32:10
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 'LIKE' enhancement suggestion
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-03-08 00:17:51
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block

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