Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> I don't agree with this either. Providing a "bypass all authentication"
> configuration option really isn't a good thing. Why don't packagers use
> our default pg_hba.conf? Because it only makes sense in a development
> type of environment. I'd argue the same is true for 'trust'.
Sure. And the problem is that development environments are a perfectly
common and respectable use-case. I cannot see Red Hat, for example,
shipping a Postgres that's built (not merely configured by user-changeable
config files, but hard-wired) to be unfriendly to developers.
If we could get to a point where there is another way that is superior
to "trust" even for single-user development environments, then maybe
it would be useful to try to persuade packagers to disable "trust".
But I don't even see a proposal for such a thing, let alone a track record
showing that nobody needs "trust". And you really have got to get to the
point of being able to argue that *nobody* needs trust, not that some
use-cases don't need it, before you will impress most packagers.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
