Re: Password sub-process ...

On 26 Jul 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:

> On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 11:28, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 10:48:53 -0300,
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Something to maybe add to the TODO list, if someone has the
> > > time/inclination to work on it ...
> > >
> > > The problem with the current auth system, as I see it, is that you can't
> > > easily have seperate user lists and passwords per database ... its shared
> > > across the system ...
> >
> > If you look at the 7.3 docs you will see that you will be able to restrict
> > access to databases by user or group name. If you use group name and have
> > one group per database you will be able to administer access pretty easily.
> > If you have a lot of databases you can use group names matching database
> > names and not have to touch your conf file when making new databases.
>
> This still doesn't allow john on db1 to be a different user than john on
> db2. To accomplish that (easily) we still need to install different
> instances for each database. Very minor issue, but it would be nice to
> have the ability (for those selling PostgreSQL storage services).

Actually, in an IS dept with several applications running, each with a
seperate group of users, this would be a plus ... if I have to create N
instances, I'm splitting up available memory/shared memory between them,
instead of creating one great big pool ...

for instance, when we upgraded archives.postgresql.org's memory a while
back, we created a shared memory segment of 1.5Gig of RAM for all the
databases (except fts, she's still under the old v7.1.3 db). Which means
that if all databases are quiet, and one comes to life to do a nice big
query, it has a nice big pool of RAM to work with ...