From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Date: | 2002-08-01 20:01:49 |
Message-ID: | 17223.1028232109@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> (Actually, what I'd prefer it do is try first for username, and
>> then username(at)databasename if plain username isn't found.)
> Yes, that would be very easy to do _except_ for pg_hba.conf which does a
> first-match for username. We could get into trouble there by trying two
> versions of the same name. Comments?
Hm. I think we'd have to switch around the order of stuff so that we
look at the flat-file copy of pg_shadow first. Then we'd know which
flavor of name we have, and we can proceed with the pg_hba match.
The reason it's worth doing this is that 'postgres', for example, should
be an installation-wide username even when you're using db-local names
for ordinary users.
> This may require raising the length of NAME type to be backwards
> compatible.
>>
>> Right, but we're planning to do that anyway.
> Yes, but that requires a protocol change, which we don't want to do for
> 7.3.
What? We've been discussing raising NAMEDATALEN for months, and no
one's claimed that it qualifies as a protocol version change.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2002-08-01 20:02:00 | Re: Module Portability |
Previous Message | Paul Ramsey | 2002-08-01 20:01:15 | Module Portability |