Vince Vielhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My point has nothing to do with resistance to GUC configurables. Someone
> WILL decide that having it as a default is a *Good Thing* because it's
> there and is useful to them
Which someone would this be? There's no chance that such a proposal
would pass a pghackers vote, and certainly no chance that someone
could commit such a change into CVS without everyone noticing.
> and in its current implementation there's not
> even a concensus that it's the right way to do it. It's being rushed into
> this version unnecessarily.
It's being rushed into this version because we need a stopgap solution.
I don't see it as anything but a stopgap. The fact that it's a very
small patch is good, because it can be replaced with minimal effort once
someone has the time to design and implement a better mechanism for
multi-database user management. AFAICT a proper solution will involve
considerable work, and I don't see it happening in time for 7.3.
Also, ugly as this may be, it's still better than the old solution for
people who are trying to support multiple similarly-named users in
different databases. The old hack required external password files
which mean manual management, admin involvement in any password change,
etc. With this approach users can set their password normally even if
they're being restricted to one database. So realistically I think this
does not affect people who aren't using it, and for people who do want
to use it it's a step forward, even if not as far forward as we'd like.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
