Re: Authorization problem

OK Tom! Many thanks!
Best regards.

--
______________________________________________________________________
Pedro Fonseca (pedro(dot)fonseca(at)iscte(dot)pt)
Mob.: (+351)964598357
http://www.pedrofonseca.com
ADETTI/ISCTE (Instituto Superior de Cincias do Trabalho e da Empresa)

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in message
news:17419(dot)1002305476(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us(dot)(dot)(dot)
> "Pedro Fonseca" <pedro(dot)fonseca(at)netcabo(dot)pt> writes:
> > I mean, this is what the 'trust' AUTHTYPE does!
>
> Quite.
>
> > Isn't this a bad thing?
>
> If you don't trust the users on your local machine, you can't use
> "trust" authtype for local connections. It's as simple as that.
>
> The reason why there's not an equivalent of "ident" auth for local
> socket connections is that most platforms don't provide any way to
> find out who owns the other end of a local socket connection.
> You're wasting your breath to complain to the Postgres developers
> about an OS-level deficiency. I'd suggest using ident and TCP/IP.
> You can set PGHOST=127.0.0.1 in your environment so you don't need to
> think about what kind of connection you are using.
>
> BTW, PG 7.2 will support ident-like auth on local connections for
> a small number of platforms where there is such a facility. But
> that doesn't help you today, and won't ever help you if you're not
> on one of those platforms.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster