| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: rolcanlogin vs. the flat password file |
| Date: | 2007-10-17 15:35:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20071017153541.GO5031@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > There's legitimate use for creating a role with NOLOGIN and a password.
>
> If we think that, then we shouldn't have a message at all.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't agree that there's really a
legitimate use for creating a role w/ NOLOGIN and a password either, for
that matter. A 'NOTICE' level message would be fine with me. We have
NOTICE messages for when we create an index for a PK. I find a message
about an entirely unexpected and unworkable configuration alot more
useful than those.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-10-17 16:09:25 | Re: rolcanlogin vs. the flat password file |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-17 15:27:10 | Re: rolcanlogin vs. the flat password file |