Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>> One thing I've thought about doing is to remove the default in initdb
>>> completely and *force* the user to choose auth type. Packagers can
>>> then just use that to set ident or whatever. and interactive users
>>> can pick trust if they really need it, but it will be a known choice.
>> Since nobody comemnted on this, let me turn it around and ask: Does
>> anybody have any reason *not* to do this?
> I'll object if no one else does: this will break existing installation
> habits and processes to no real benefit.
The benefit would be that PostgreSQL would be "secure by default". Which
we are *not* today.
As a comparison, that's been one of the most common complaints against
Windows earlier - stuff is installed and enabled by default, and only if
you already know the system do you know that you should disable it. The
same thing applies here - if you don't already know how PostgreSQL
works, you will by default install a database that's completely without
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-06-23 16:41:42|
|Subject: Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL |
|Previous:||From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira||Date: 2007-06-23 16:04:38|
|Subject: Re: tsearch in core patch|