| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "elein" <elein(at)varlena(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is "trust" really a good default? |
| Date: | 2004-07-13 07:51:04 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE34BE41@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> It has probably be said before, but new users need to be able
> to get up and running on their *development* system quickly.
> Throwing new users for a loop with the password configuration
> issues would be a problem.
This is exactly the argument that was thrown out when people wanted to
be able to run their development backends as an admin account on
Windows.. These users are thrown into setting up new accounts etc, which
is a lot more work than just setting a superuser password in the db.
> Most people would put up a test server first anyway in order
> to check things out and configure as necessary.
See above.
The only difference is that one lets yuo root the machine, the other one
lets you root the database. Sure, the machine is worse, but not *that*
much worse.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-07-13 08:33:02 | Re: Is "trust" really a good default? |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-07-13 07:47:20 | Re: Is "trust" really a good default? |