From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What Would You Like To Do? |
Date: | 2011-09-14 16:09:26 |
Message-ID: | CAJKUy5iPTnWxwWcc_=W56HhTm4mxWxv48NF8MS_BP0s6XTdKVw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 09/14/2011 05:12 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 10:26 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>>> Complete isolation at the user level, allowing an ISP to support
>>>> multiple independent customers on a server without having to fiddle with
>>>> multiple back ends each running on a separate port, a feature that MySQL
>>>> has had for as far back as I can recall, and one of the reasons ISPs are
>>>> more likely to offer MySQL than PostgreSQL.
>>>
>>> Now this would definitely be nice. It is frustrating that we don't have
>>> per database users.
>>
>> Hmm, what does the GUC db_user_namespace do then ?
>>
>> it says "Enables per-database user names."
>
> Last I checked (it has been a few years) that was at best, a hack. I
> remember either I or David Fetter? Writing about some issues with it on list
> but it was a long time ago.
>
last time i tried it (last year), it seems broken because i couldn't
log in with any user anymore... but it could be that i did something
wrong so i didn't report until i could confirm but i hadn't the time
and i forgot it since then
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2011-09-14 16:49:01 | Re: What Would You Like To Do? |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2011-09-14 15:54:45 | Re: What Would You Like To Do? |