Is this a TODO here, perhaps dumping authentication from tables?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > since the purpose of the pg_hba.conf file is to ensure that you never
> > manage to lock
At 06:16 PM 3/29/2004 -0600, Mike Nolan wrote:
> Now, that doesn't preclude clients from seeing the names of another
> clients database using \l, but unless there is gross mis-management of the
> pg_hba.conf, seeing the names of other databases doesn't give other
> clients any benefits ...
That ra
Jan Wieck wrote:
If you don't know the answers to that, I assume it isn't that easy as
people try to make believe. And in case the answer is "that is not
possible but ...", then you better think again what you want that
replication setup for.
Although I agree with your points (especially having
Gregory Wood wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
If you don't know the answers to that, I assume it isn't that easy as
people try to make believe. And in case the answer is "that is not
possible but ...", then you better think again what you want that
replication setup for.
Although I agree with your points
On Mar 29, 2004, at 7:44 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Mike Nolan wrote:
Now, that doesn't preclude clients from seeing the names of another
clients database using \l, but unless there is gross mis-management
of the
pg_hba.conf, seeing the names of other databases doesn't give
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Mike Nolan wrote:
> > Now, that doesn't preclude clients from seeing the names of another
> > clients database using \l, but unless there is gross mis-management of the
> > pg_hba.conf, seeing the names of other databases doesn't give other
> > clients any benefits ...
>
> Tha
> Now, that doesn't preclude clients from seeing the names of another
> clients database using \l, but unless there is gross mis-management of the
> pg_hba.conf, seeing the names of other databases doesn't give other
> clients any benefits ...
That rather depends upon what those clients are doing,
Which HA abilities does PG lack?
CSN
I sincerely hope not. PostgreSQL is THE free database
that can reach the
production quality of the major databases (Oracle,
DB2). The only remaining
feature it lacks out of the box is replication and
some HA abilities the big
ones have. And f
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Mike Nolan wrote:
> I know of an ISP who has a large number of customers (in excess of 400)
> running similar small (probably under 100MB each) MySQL databases. Since
> I know each customer has access only to his own data, I assume it is
> implemented using a different databa
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> It might be possible to do something with a flat file as an intermediary
> between the postmaster and the tables that are the master data. We
> already do this for pg_shadow passwords, and I've been thinking of
> proposing that we add a flat file for the dat
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And while we're at it, maybe we should have a setting somewhere should
> > someone execute the famous "update pg_shadow set usesuper = false" that
> > someone did a while back to be able to force an account to
Alex wrote:
MySQL is still the default database offered by any web hosting company
and if Postgres wants to become the designated db engine for these
services or become the worlds no.1 open source db then i think lots of
things need to be done. Take for example the admin interface (MySQL
Admin
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Mike Nolan wrote:
> > > Perhaps, but it isn't obvious which directory has which database. I'm not
> > > not sure which system catalogs provide that information, something that
> > > wasn't obvious from the online docs, either.
> >
> > SELECT oid FROM pg_database WHERE datname
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Mike Nolan wrote:
> I'm not much of an expert in MySQL, but on my ISP 'show databases' only
> shows MY databases.
Right, show databases == \l, I believe ... but, how is security on the
table(s) that 'show databases' dealt with ... can you access those
directly, by passing the
Hi david and PGSQL lovers,
I think that PGSQL devellopers and users must not be upset
by all the ongoing comparisons between MySQL and PostgreSQL.
This is the direct illustration of the postgresql success,
it gives me the feelings that its like a shameful desire
of MySQL users to come to a more "p
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Mike Nolan wrote:
> The \l command should only list databases that the current user is
> authorized for, the \du command should only list users authorized for
> the current database (and perhaps only superusers should get even that
> much information), etc. Perhaps it is poss
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Mike Nolan wrote:
> > Huh? Each database under PostgreSQL is kept under a seperate directory on
> > the server ... always has been that way ..
>
> Perhaps, but it isn't obvious which directory has which database. I'm not
> not sure which system catalogs provide that informat
Alex wrote:
MySQL is still the default database offered by any web hosting company
and if Postgres wants to become the designated db engine for these
services or become the worlds no.1 open source db then i think lots of
things need to be done. Take for example the admin interface (MySQL
Admini
> Just curious ... restricting \l itself isn't too difficult ... but how
> does MySQL restrict the ability to do something like:
>
> SELECT datname FROM pg_database;
>
> or does it not have an equivalent to that?
I'm not much of an expert in MySQL, but on my ISP 'show databases' only
shows MY d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 28 March 2004 06:06 pm, Alex wrote:
> Frank,
> pls. apologize. Maybe my description was not so clear. What I was
> referring to was the fact that under MySQL you have more freedom to give
> individual users of a shared server rights to create
> > Perhaps, but it isn't obvious which directory has which database. I'm not
> > not sure which system catalogs provide that information, something that
> > wasn't obvious from the online docs, either.
>
> SELECT oid FROM pg_database WHERE datname = '';
Thanks. That should be easier to find in
> Huh? Each database under PostgreSQL is kept under a seperate directory on
> the server ... always has been that way ..
Perhaps, but it isn't obvious which directory has which database. I'm not
not sure which system catalogs provide that information, something that
wasn't obvious from the onli
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Alex wrote:
> Frank,
> pls. apologize. Maybe my description was not so clear. What I was
> referring to was the fact that under MySQL you have more freedom to give
> individual users of a shared server rights to create and manage their
> databases In addition all databases are
Frank,
pls. apologize. Maybe my description was not so clear. What I was
referring to was the fact that under MySQL you have more freedom to give
individual users of a shared server rights to create and manage their
databases In addition all databases are kept in separate directories
unlike pos
24 matches
Mail list logo
