| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: whats the deal with -u ? |
| Date: | 2007-12-10 14:49:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20071210144957.GN5031@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> So as far as I can tell, the available options -U and -W serve all the
> existing use cases. I would have no issue with getting rid of the -W option
> if someone wants to take responsibility for ensuring that it will really
> never be necessary. I see no technical or usability merit in reviving the -u
> option. I hope the above explanations have shed some light on that.
I think getting rid of -W would cause a problem w/ PAM in some instances
since, iirc, PG will try PAM w/o a password first and only prompt if it
doesn't work. That's pretty ugly if you're using things like pam_tally
to limit the number of bad attempts allowed. (This is entirely
empirical, it's possible there's some other explanation for what's
happening, but I recall having to use -W to get PG to not cause PAM to
make noisies in my auth.log...).
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-12-10 15:04:46 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #3799: csvlog skips some logs |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-12-10 14:05:05 | pgsql: Document how to turn off disk write cache on popular operating |