Re: Open 7.3 items

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> OK, here is the request for vote. Do we want:
>
> 1) the old secondary passwords re-added
> 2) the new prefixing of the database name to the username when enabled
> 3) do nothing

I'd vote #3, for the following reasons:

- The functionality that Marc is worried about (in effect,
allowing multiple database users with the same name) is
pretty obscure, and the implementation is even more so. I
doubt whether there is *anyone* other than Marc actually
using it (if that's not the case, please speak up).

Given that it was completely undocumented and a pretty clear
abuse of the existing code, I don't think it's unreasonable
for us to break backward compatibility on this issue.

- The old way of doing things is broken, for reasons Bruce has
elaborated on. Unless there's a compelling reason why we
*need* this feature in the standard distribution, I'd rather
we not go back to the old way of doing things.

- I'm not perfectly happy with the scheme Bruce suggested as
an interim fix (#2). If we're going to implement this
feature, let's do it properly. In particular, I'm not
convinced that this feature is urgently needed enough to
justify a short-term kludge, and I dislike using a GUC
variable to toggle between two quite different
authentication processes.

So I'd say leave things as they are. One thing I'd like to see anyway
is a more prominent listing of the client-visible incompatibilities in
the release notes -- I'd be content to add an entry to that list for
the 7.3 release and talk about a more elaborate scheme during the 7.4
development cycle.

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC