On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 07:14 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 09/14/2011 05:12 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 10:26 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >>> Complete isolation at the user level, allowing an ISP to support > >>> multiple independent customers on a server without having to fiddle with > >>> multiple back ends each running on a separate port, a feature that MySQL > >>> has had for as far back as I can recall, and one of the reasons ISPs are > >>> more likely to offer MySQL than PostgreSQL. > >> > >> Now this would definitely be nice. It is frustrating that we don't have > >> per database users. > > > > Hmm, what does the GUC db_user_namespace do then ? > > > > it says "Enables per-database user names." > > Last I checked (it has been a few years) that was at best, a hack. I > remember either I or David Fetter? Writing about some issues with it on > list but it was a long time ago.
I have never used it myself, so I can't comment on it. OTOH it may be that it actually works if said ISP uses it carefully :) > -- > Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ > PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development > The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/ > @cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579 > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers