| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "Optional ident" authentication |
| Date: | 2006-11-28 01:15:25 |
| Message-ID: | 26519.1164676525@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> You can accomplish that with
>>
>> local sameuser all ident sameuser
>> local all all pam
> You put "sameuser" in the database column instead of the "user" column -
> was the intentional? I've just tried this with "sameuser" in the user
> column, and it didn't work for me.
You're right, I was confusing the database-column feature with what's
involved here. There isn't really any way for "sameuser" to work in the
user column, since that would require a way to identify the user's
non-database username, which is exactly the province of the auth method.
So never mind :-(.
But I still question whether Jeroen's got any real use case that can't
be handled the other way, viz
local webapp,etc all ident sameuser
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2006-11-28 01:31:31 | Re: Integrating Replication into Core |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2006-11-28 00:09:15 | Re: RC1 blocker issues |