From: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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 20:04:24 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.40.0208151603160.56538-100000@paprika.michvhf.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > I don't see what the problem is of dumping out the entire content of
> > pg_shadow into a flat file. First you look for a non-@ user, then you
> > look for an @ user that matches the database.
>
> While I'd prefer that approach myself, the way Bruce is proposing does
> have a definite advantage: there is no problem with confusion between
> global users and database-local users of the same username. "foo@" is
> global, "foo" is not.
>
> My own feeling is that the confusion argument is a weak one, and that
> not having to use "@" to log in as a global user would be worth having
> to avoid duplicating global and local names. But I'm not sufficiently
> excited about it to volunteer to do the work ;-)
Here we go again. I thought you just said that the @ wouldn't be
something a user would have to do. I understood that to be any user.
It's back to ugly again.
Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
http://www.camping-usa.com http://www.cloudninegifts.com
http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com
==========================================================================
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-15 20:13:00 | Re: pg_dump output portability |
Previous Message | cbbrowne | 2002-08-15 20:01:04 | Re: Standard replication interface? |