| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SEV <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Peter Eisentraut'" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] users in Postgresql |
| Date: | 1999-11-12 12:01:03 |
| Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C603FDC168@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This is based on the premise that it would somehow be useful to link Unix
> and PostgreSQL users.
This is useful, for a system like postgres, since due to the user types,
some user functions will eventually be executed with a setuid to a specific
unix user.
This may be the function owner, (dba procedure) or the user who is
connected.
> In that case this would certainly be needed.
Yes imho.
> However, this would be a significant step backwards, since
> database users
> are in general not equal to system users, most importantly
> since clients
> might run on completely different systems than the server.
Well , since I need all users as unix users, I do not want
postgres users at all. At the very least I do not want to keep
separate passwords for db users in the db.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 1999-11-12 13:42:22 | Re: [HACKERS] compression in LO and other fields |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 1999-11-12 11:16:23 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] users in Postgresql |