| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles | 
| Date: | 2005-06-30 15:48:07 | 
| Message-ID: | 19492.1120146487@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches | 
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> That's controlled by pg_hba.conf though, isn't it?  The idea being that
> you'd like to give some people the ability to create users/roles, but to
> limit the databases those created users/roles could connect to by, say,
> requiring they have 'usage' or 'connect' permissions to that database,
> which could be set by the database owner; without the database owner
> having write permissions to the pg_hba.conf.
You can do that today by putting a group name in pg_hba.conf.  Roles
will make it more flexible; I don't see that we need anything more.
For instance, if pg_hba.conf says "samegroup" then you could manage
everything by associating a group with each database.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-06-30 15:49:59 | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles | 
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-06-30 15:44:44 | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-06-30 15:49:59 | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles | 
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-06-30 15:44:44 | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles |