Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > First and foremost in my mind ... how do you have two users in the system > > with seperate passwords? ... > > since as soon as there are two 'bruce' users, only one can have a password > > Uh, we've *never* supported "two bruce users" ... users have always been > installation-wide. I am not sure what the notion of a database-owning > user means if user names are not of wider scope than databases. > > No doubt we could redesign the system so that user names are local to a > database, and break a lot of existing setups in the process. But what's > the value? If you want separate usernames you can set up separate > postmasters. If we change, and you don't want separate user names > across databases, you'll be out of luck.
He was being tricky by having different passwords for the same user on each database, so one user couldn't get into the other database, even though it was the same name. He could actually have a user access databases 1,2,3 and another user with a different password access databases 4,5,6 because of the username/password files. Now, he can't do that. Having those file function as username lists is already implemented better in the new code. The question is whether using those secondary passwords is widespread enough that I need to get that into the code too. It was pretty confusing for users, so I am hesitant to re-add it, but I hate for Marc to lose functionality he had in the past. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
