From: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Password sub-process ... |
Date: | 2002-07-30 15:23:17 |
Message-ID: | 20020730152316.GA13939@klamath.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:55:55AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> I think that is the problem with everyone's "thinking" ... they are only
> dealing with 'small servers', where it only has a couple of databases ...
> I'm currently running a server with >100 domains on it, each one with *at
> least* one database ... each one of those domains, in reality, *could*
> have a user 'bruce' ...
First off, I think the implementation of this functionality present in 7.2
was a big hack, and I'd rather not see it resurrected.
However, it would be useful to be able to do something like this -- how
about something like the following:
- the auth system contains a list of 'auth domains' -- an identifier
similar to a schema name
- the combination of (domain, username) must be unique -- i.e. a
username is unique within a domain
- each database exists within a single domain; a domain can have 0,
1, or many databases
- by default, the system ships with a single auth domain; when a
user is created, the admin can specify the domain in which the
user exists, otherwise it defaults to the default domain
Anyway, just thinking out loud -- that may or may not make any sense...
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro | 2002-07-30 15:23:53 | Re: Question about LWLockAcquire's use of semaphores instead |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-07-30 15:23:15 | Re: Password sub-process ... |