On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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.
You seem to have done a nice job with the + and @ for 'maps' ... how about third on that states that the map file has a username:password pair in it? I do like how the pg_hba.conf has changed, just don't like the lose of functionality :( ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org