| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Ron Snyder <snyder(at)roguewave(dot)com>, Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DB-local usernames |
| Date: | 2002-08-06 14:04:42 |
| Message-ID: | 15159.1028642682@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Can anyone think of a way to get this to work _without_ pushing the
> complexity into the user administration commands? That is what is
> preventing me from creating a separate field in pg_shadow.
I'd definitely prefer not to do that. We have not really thought
through the implications. The original idea here was a quick-and-dirty,
easily ignored, optional feature to support per-database user name
assignment. Turning it into something more will require a lot of design
work that we haven't done, and IMHO don't have time for before 7.3.
BTW, I still prefer "user(at)dbname" to "dbname.user".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-06 14:17:20 | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-06 13:57:44 | Re: CVS broken again? |