| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Password sub-process ... |
| Date: | 2002-07-30 04:17:18 |
| Message-ID: | 28893.1028002638@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> First and foremost in my mind ... how do you have two users in the system
> with seperate passwords? ...
> since as soon as there are two 'bruce' users, only one can have a password
Uh, we've *never* supported "two bruce users" ... users have always been
installation-wide. I am not sure what the notion of a database-owning
user means if user names are not of wider scope than databases.
No doubt we could redesign the system so that user names are local to a
database, and break a lot of existing setups in the process. But what's
the value? If you want separate usernames you can set up separate
postmasters. If we change, and you don't want separate user names
across databases, you'll be out of luck.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-30 04:33:08 | Re: Password sub-process ... |
| Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-07-30 04:14:54 | Re: WAL file location |