Re: Open 7.3 items

I would personally like to see 2, however, Marc is correct IMHO. I cast
my vote using the qualifiers that Marc laid out below.

Greg

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 20:24, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > It had such limited usefulness ('password' only, only crypted-hashed
> > passwords in the file) that it doesn't make much sense to resurect it.
>
> It had limited usefulness to you ... but how many sites out there are
> going to break when they try to upgraded without it there? I do agree
> that it needs to improved / replaced, but without a suitable replacement
> in place, the old should be resurrected until such a suitable one is in
> place ...
>
> > I know you object, so I am going to ask for a vote.
>
> How can you request a vote of such a limited audience? *Adding*
> functionality is easy ... removing functionality with at least a release
> for-warning is easy ... removing a feature without any forewarning is akin
> to cutting our own throats ...
>
> > OK, here is the request for vote. Do we want:
> >
> > 1) the old secondary passwords re-added
> > 2) the new prefixing of the database name to the username when enabled
> > 3) do nothing
>
> If 2 can be done in such a way to be transparent, as well as to allow a
> database owner to be able to create users for his/her database, then I
> think it would be great ... and would far exceed what we have now ...
>
> If you can't do 2 as a complete solution, which, IMHO, includes a db owner
> being able to create db.users for his own database, then my vote is for 1
> ... if 2 can be done completely, then I vote for 2, as it would definitely
> be much more useful ...
>
> Hrmmm ... I was just thinking of another scenario where such a feature
> would be great ... educational. The ability to setup a database server,
> but to give a professor a database for a course that he could create
> 'accounts' for each of the students ...
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster