Re: Open 7.3 items

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Open 7.3 items
Date: 2002-08-15 17:21:26
Message-ID: 25338.1029432086@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> writes:
> But it doesn't need to affect anyone, even if it's enabled. Isn't
> the lack of an @ just as good as an @ at the end of the username?

No, because there isn't any @ in the incoming connection request in the
normal-user case: just a user name and a database name, which *we* have
to assemble into user(at)database(dot)

We can't really expect the users to do this for us (give user(at)database
as their full user name). There are a number of reasons why I don't
wanna do that, but the real showstopper is that the username field of
the connection request packet is only 32 bytes wide, and we cannot
enlarge it without a protocol breakage. Fitting "user(at)database" in 32
bytes would be awfully restrictive about your user and database names.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2002-08-15 17:35:17 Re: [HACKERS] Companies involved in development
Previous Message Vince Vielhaber 2002-08-15 17:13:52 Re: Open 7.3 items