From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CREATE USER bug |
Date: | 2003-10-10 17:30:55 |
Message-ID: | 200310101730.h9AHUtP25458@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 16:21, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > postgres=# create user with encrypted password '98wq7912a';
> > CREATE USER
> > postgres=# create user with encrypted password '98wq7912a';
> > ERROR: CREATE USER: user name "with" already exists
>
> So, what are we doing about this? If we're considering it a bug, one way
> to fix it is to move WITH from unreserved_keywords to reserved_keywords.
> Any other suggestions?
I think the code is fine as it is now, seeing how WITH is optional:
CREATE USER username [ [ WITH ] option [ ... ] ]
I don't see a huge problem with allowing "with" as a user name. Of
course, we could require them to write:
CREATE USER with WITH ...
but then WITH isn't optional anymore, at least for a user named 'with'.
--
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 | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-10-10 17:54:25 | Re: last beta version to require initdb |
Previous Message | Dawn M. Wolthuis | 2003-10-10 16:13:10 | Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL |