From: | Matt Andrews <mattandrews(at)massey(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Users, Roles and Connection Pooling |
Date: | 2019-10-02 09:41:13 |
Message-ID: | CAPeDGQ5TjXO0EmPsZy9+y6d2Q9hx2usy_pxcVK6Uw8wk-NKb3Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I have little experience in this area, but it seems like having a Postgres
role for every application user is the right way to do things. It’s just
that it also seems really inconvenient.
For example how to map an application’s users/people table to Postgres
roles? The pg_role name field is limited to 64 bytes, you can’t create a
foreign key to pg_role. What’s the answer? Use UUIDs as usernames or
something?
There’s very little out there on this topic, but surely this has been done
before.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 17:43, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Laurenz Albe (laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at) wrote:
> > A couple of pointers:
>
> I generally agree with these comments.
>
> > - This is a good setup if you don't have too many users. Metadata
> > queries will start getting slow if you get into the tens of thousands
> > of users, maybe earlier.
>
> While this seems plausible- I'd love to hear about exactly what you've
> seen start to be a problem when getting up to that many users. Are you
> just referring to things like \du? Or..?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
>
--
Matt Andrews
0400 990 131
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rob Sargent | 2019-10-02 11:03:06 | Re: Users, Roles and Connection Pooling |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-10-02 07:43:10 | Re: Users, Roles and Connection Pooling |