On Tuesday 27 August 2002 03:43 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Lamar Owen wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 August 2002 03:19 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I thought it WAS resolved, to do:
> > > Tom likes this because it is the fewer global users who have to append > > > the '@'. > > At least that was my perception of the uneasy consensus reached. > OK, you have now split the vote because we have two for the change, and > two against. Why do you prefer to tag the globals? Is it Tom's > argument? I think it is kind of strange to tag the globals when it is > the locals who have @ in their username, and when they do: I agree with what Tom said, and understand why he said it. And I thought you did, too -- I have apparently misunderstood (again!) the issue. In the local-enabled scheme, ISTM the majority of users will be local users. The goal is transparent virtual databases -- at least that's what I consider the goal. As far as the user is concerned, the other databases might as well not even exist -- all they are doing is connecting to their database. Since they have to give the database name as part of the connection, it just makes sense that they should have the closest to default behavior. In the case of a virtual hosting postmaster, global users would likely be DBA's, although they might not be. These users are going to be the exception, not the rule -- thus a character to tag their 'exceptional' nature. You may not even want your virtual host local users to realize that there is another user by that name. Thus, the standard notation is the least intrusive for the very users that need uninstrusive notation. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
