From: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Ron Snyder <snyder(at)roguewave(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Date: | 2002-08-07 13:29:46 |
Message-ID: | 87wur2lrud.fsf@klamath.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> writes:
> > - The functionality that Marc is worried about (in effect,
> > allowing multiple database users with the same name) is
> > pretty obscure, and the implementation is even more so. I
> > doubt whether there is *anyone* other than Marc actually
> > using it (if that's not the case, please speak up).
>
> I would use database specific users for a similar area -- shared
> hosting.
I agree that the functionality Marc is looking for is useful -- I'm
just saying that I would bet that *no one* is using the current
implementation of it in PostgreSQL (i.e. so I don't see the need to
keep backward compatibility, or the harm in removing the feature for
the next release until a better solution is designed & implemented).
> But, could live with a longer (128 byte) namedatalen to allow
> a unique user%domain.
That seems like a serviceable solution to me -- it seems quite easy to
implement this functionality outside the database proper (at least
until a proper solution is devised). Keep in mind that the current
FE/BE protocol limits database and user names to 64 characters.
That's another thing I'd like to fix in 7.4.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-08-07 13:37:03 | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2002-08-07 13:29:26 | Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered |