Re: Is "trust" really a good default?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is "trust" really a good default?
Date: 2004-07-15 21:48:34
Message-ID: 200407152348.34057.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't really see a problem with doing it that way. People who want
> to use -W are presumably worried about the security of their local
> system, otherwise they would just fire up the postmaster and set a
> password later.

No, that is exactly what I don't agree with. People might want to
assign a password just so that the user has one, with the intention of
configuring non-local password-protected access right after initdb
finishes. It's a convenience that you set the password when the user
is logically created.

> There are of course some questions about how to document this
> effectively, so that it doesn't create more confusion than it avoids.

Yes, that is another thing I'm afraid of.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message DarkSamurai 2004-07-15 22:02:32 Escaping metacharacters
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2004-07-15 21:47:22 Re: Point in Time Recovery