| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Mention that PAM requires the user already exist in the database, |
| Date: | 2005-04-28 22:23:33 |
| Message-ID: | 200504290023.34183.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-docs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't recall exactly what Dick suggested, but the patch as applied
> seems like fairly useless verbiage. Exactly which of our other auth
> methods allow users who *don't* exist in the database to log in?
> And why would anyone find it surprising that this does not happen?
I think the difference is that PAM carries a user list of its own, and
users might be led to believe that it's enough to create a user in the
PAM system and it will automatically exist in the database.
With the other authentication methods, there is no external user list.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | User Cmaj | 2005-04-28 22:35:53 | pgaccess - pgaccess: first integration of new visual query builder |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-28 21:47:18 | pgsql: Implement sharable row-level locks, and use them for foreign key |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-29 16:48:15 | Re: Using Encryption Patch to Docs |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-27 20:11:16 | Re: PAM documentation |