On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Stewart Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:32:36 +0200, Henrik Ingo <[email protected]> > wrote: >> A few weeks ago you were finishing the catalogs and we discussed on >> IRC how one should actually end up in ones own confined catalog. >> (different tcp/ip port per catalog were mentioned as one way) > > This is still something I think about. The listening on specific > interface I think is certainly something we want to be able to support > at some point.
Sure. These don't exclude each other. >> I just wanted to come and say I think for many cloud-like use cases >> the username is the best key. The counterargument to this was that at >> least with some auth_ plugins, especially the mysql-like auth_schema, >> the users would be stored inside the catalog, so we have a chicken egg >> problem. > > I think this is also a great way - and very easy to integrate into > existing apps... altought that's often the same way with doing schema > name prefix > > >> But upon thinking it seems one could simply require users to pass the >> catalog name prepended to the username and dot as separator. This >> would also allow to have identically named users in different >> catalogs, which is clearly desired. > > The advantage of prepending catalog to schema is that we can do it all a > bit earlier and keep the auth routines pretty simple.... although I have > not looked really closely at how we have to change them for having good > CATALOG support. How can something happen earlier than authentication? I would expect that to always happen first? Either way, I'm a bit undecided on this one today. In a way it would be logical to prepend to schema, since that is where Catalogs exist as a namespace: catalog.schema.table.column I suppose it will work just as fine - if, and only if - it is then required to always write the catalog name, including "local" when using that. One small downside I can think of is that you cannot then connect to just the catalog without specifying a schema too. I don't know if anyone ever needs to do that though, not specifying a schema is usually just laziness. Anyway, the latter of these two is ambiguous: mysql --user=hingo --password=sshhh mycatalog.myschema mysql --user=hingo --password=sshhh mycatalog (The latter would really mean a schema called "mycatalog".) By stuffing it into the user, one could still safely interpret "no dots" as local catalog. I suppose one could allow a dot with no schema: mysql --user=hingo --password=sshhh mycatalog. This would be the equivalent of the common: mysql --user=hingo --password=sshhh henrik -- [email protected] +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
