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
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 |