Re: Limit on number of users in postgresql?

[Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>]

Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> 
> > Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> writes:
> > > In response to Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> > >> Yeah, but the postmaster can't read pg_authid, nor any other table,
> > >> because it's not logically connected to the database.  So any change
> > >> to pg_authid gets copied to a "flat" ASCII-text file for the postmaster.
> > 
> > > Would using kerberos or some other external auth mechanism work around this?
> > 
> > Kerberos can't read the database directly either, so I'm not sure I see
> > your point.
> 
> It's possible that I'm misunderstanding.
> 
> If there's a problem with having large numbers of users in Postgres because
> the postmaster has to use a flat file to store them, can one circumvent the
> issue by configuring Postgres to use kerberos for auth instead of its
> internal mechanisms?  Will this eliminate the need for the flat file?

No, because Postgres needs to check that the user is present in the
internal catalogs anyway.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.