I think we need to resolve this discussion from a week ago. The current
code is this:
global usernames are stored just like before, e.g. postgres
local users are stored as user@dbname
when connecting, global users add '@' to their names
when connecting, local users use just their user name, no @dbname
Tom likes this because it is the fewer global users who have to append
the '@'.
Vince and Peter think that it should be local users adding '@' when
connecting because:
they have an @ sign in their name anyway
global users should be able to connect unchanged
I can foresee a time when we will have longer usernames, and local users
will be able to connect with the full user@dbname, and we can allow
user@ as a shortcut.
In summary, I prefer to change the code to have local users append the
'@'.
Comments?
It is an easy change and prevents what is a very confusing situation
where we add '@' for users who don't have @, and remove '@' for users
who have it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I'm concerned that we leave essentially no migration path, that is, the
> > > ability to turn the feature on to try it out without immediately breaking
> > > every application.
> >
> > Uh ... what? I fail to understand your objection. AFAICS the only
> > apps that could be "broken" are scripts that have usernames hardwired
> > into them ...
>
> I'm completely lost between all the proposals about where the @ is going
> to be specified, added, or removed. What happens on the client side and
> what happens on the server side?
>
> All I would like to see is that I can turn on this feature and nothing
> changes as long as I don't add any "local users". Yes, that includes
> hard-wired user names on the client side. Of course there are various
> degrees of hard-wiring, but what if the ISP admin updates to 7.3 and wants
> to turn on the feature for new clients? Does he tell all his existing
> clients that they must update their user names? Possibly, these users got
> their database access with a shell account and don't specify the user name
> at all because it defaults to the OS user name. Does that continue to
> work?
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
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 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
