Re: Password sub-process ...

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Uh, we've *never* supported "two bruce users" ...
>
> > He was being tricky by having different passwords for the same user on
> > each database, so one user couldn't get into the other database, even
> > though it was the same name.
>
> But the system didn't realize they were two different users. (Try
> dropping just one of them.) And what if they happened to choose the
> same password? I think this is a fragile kluge not a supported feature.
>
> > The question is whether using those secondary
> > passwords is widespread enough that I need to get that into the code
> > too. It was pretty confusing for users, so I am hesitant to re-add it,
> > but I hate for Marc to lose functionality he had in the past.
>
> I'd like to think of a better answer, not put back that same kluge.
> Ideas anyone?

I just thought a little more. Basically, I can't imagine any better
answer because they _should_ be the same user, and any trickery that
allows the same user to have two different passwords for two different
database will appear to be bad design.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026