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
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 |