| From: | "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Furface" <furface(at)omnicode(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Limit on number of users in postgresql? |
| Date: | 2007-01-29 20:04:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1170101048.30719.1171822961@webmail.messagingengine.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> The more I think about it, the more I think a proxy app is necessary.
> It seems like a lot of work just for security issues, but basically most
> web based database apps use this model, with the web application acting
> as a proxy between the database and the client.
This is how I've seen it done on almost every application I've worked
on. If you have multiple apps hitting a single DB, usually each
application has it's own role. But user-level security is controlled at
the application-level. Although I don't think there's anything *wrong*
with having a role-per-user (it could provide an "extra" layer of
security), I think it's much more flexible to define security in the
application/business logic layer.
That being said, we shouldn't get too wound up over this "limitation" of
PostgreSQL until someone finds that there really is some real-world
performance issue. AFAIK, everything in this thread is theoretical.
Cheers,
Jeremy Haile
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | TWENGER2 | 2007-01-29 20:06:43 | dependency ? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-01-29 19:58:00 | Re: Locking question? |