From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Date: | 2002-08-27 20:10:56 |
Message-ID: | 1030479059.51638.11.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It should also be noted that it's easy to get the DBAs to change their
username in the future when / if the @ hack goes away BUT it will be
difficult to change the usernames of the hundreds to thousands of
customer accounts.
For an upgrade, we'd end up making a script in the upgrade to keep them
the same (with the @) then have a control panel code in place to suggest
to the user that they may stop using the @ if they wish <click here>
type of thing.
> > > > Tom likes this because it is the fewer global users who have to append
> > > > the '@'.
>
> > > At least that was my perception of the uneasy consensus reached.
>
> > OK, you have now split the vote because we have two for the change, and
> > two against. Why do you prefer to tag the globals? Is it Tom's
> > argument? I think it is kind of strange to tag the globals when it is
> > the locals who have @ in their username, and when they do:
> In the case of a virtual hosting postmaster, global users would likely be
> DBA's, although they might not be. These users are going to be the
> exception, not the rule -- thus a character to tag their 'exceptional'
> nature.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-27 20:15:35 | Re: REINDEX ALL and CLUSTER ALL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-27 20:08:53 | Re: REINDEX ALL and CLUSTER ALL |