On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 15:16:37 +0200, Andrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >No, the tables would be on the server, the same as was already being done. > >Using a separate table makes it more future proof. > > To access tables in server, you need to login into server. > To login into server, you need postresql user name and password sent by > client and thus stored in client computer. > > It is possible to obtain this information from client computer and use it > for unauthirized access to data.
This is the same problem as checking the password versus the native (to postgres) password hashes. I suggested having private tables as an alternative to that in order for the OP to not have problems with future upgrades, which was the original question. I didn't give an opinion on whether or not the whole approach was a good idea or not, since there wasn't enough detail in the original question. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
