Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > How about if we just document that they have to create a > > postgres@template1 user before flipping the switch. That way, there is > > no special user, no PG_INSTALLER file, and no double-tests for user > > names. > > ... and no useful superuser account; if you can't connect to anything > except template1 then you ain't much of a superuser. > > To get around that you'd have to create postgres@db1, postgres@db2, > postgres@db3, etc etc. This would be a huge pain in the neck; I think > it'd render the scheme impractical. (Keep in mind that anybody who'd be > interested in this feature at all has probably got quite a number of > databases to contend with.)
Yes, I hear you, but that brings us around full-circle to the original patch with one super-user who is the install user. I don't know where else to go with the patch at this point. I think increasing the number of 'global' users is polluting the namespace too much, and having none seems to be unappealing. This is why I am back to just the install user. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
