From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Date: | 2002-08-16 17:30:03 |
Message-ID: | 200208161730.g7GHU3S23451@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > Once again: *no one* has at any time suggested that any form of this
> > patch should affect the default behavior in the slightest.
>
> Not yet they haven't. What happens when it's decided that this
> *feature* is a good thing and should be the default? Maybe not
> now, but can you guarantee that that won't happen in say 7.4? Or
> maybe 8.0? I can hear it now, "Well we're giving you an entire
> version to change your scripts".
I can't argue hypothetical with you, but if we decided to make this a
default behavior, we would probably push the functionality down into
CREATE USER, create a new column in pg_shadow, lengthen the username
passed from the client, and do it that way. However, because it is not
on by default _and_ we don't want to add visibility to a functionality
that is off by default, we are doing it this way.
Remember, non-local users already have an @ in their username. I am
just adding @ to the global users too. This functionality actually
allows you to keep your old users in pg_shadow and once you turn on the
feature, those users become unusable. When you turn the feature off,
they are back again.
I know the trailing @ is ugly, but it prevents surpises when connecting
to the database.
> There's not even a consensus that this is the right way to do it,
> you even said you'd prefer it was implemented in another way but
> don't have the time to do it. Since when does this group rush to
> stuff features in without agreement even on HOW to implement it?
This is an argument I don't want to bow to. How many features have we
left undone, for release after release, because we couldn't find a
perfect way to do it, so we did nothing, and users went elsewhere for
their database needs? We have had enough discussion to know that there
isn't a perfect solution in this case, so we are going to implement the
best we can, and if we have to revisit it in 8.0, so be it. I am sure
you will still be around to help craft that solution.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2002-08-16 17:34:05 | Re: Open 7.3 items |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-16 17:05:37 | Re: Bug/Change in behavior for 7.3 vs 7.2.1 |