Re: Password sub-process ...

From: "Sander Steffann" <sander(at)steffann(dot)nl>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Password sub-process ...
Date: 2002-07-30 18:18:49
Message-ID: 004101c237f5$8d33e9a0$64c8a8c0@balefire10ww
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

> I am wondering if we could have a configure-time or install-time
> option to make pg_shadow (and pg_group I guess) be database-local
> instead of installation-wide. I am not sure about the implications
> of this --- in particular, is the notion of a database owner still
> meaningful? How could the postmaster cope with it (I'd guess we'd
> need multiple flat files, one per DB, for the postmaster to read)?

I realy like the idea, but how would you handle the postgres (super)user in
this scenario? One global postgres user, or a separate one for each db? In
the last case, the DB owner would be the DB-specific postgres user. A global
superuser would still be needed for backups and other maintainance tasks...

Sander

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2002-07-30 18:19:46 Re: WAL file location
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-07-30 18:05:57 Re: WAL file location