Oliver Elphick wrote: > > 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. > > Has this behaviour been carried through into GRANT and REVOKE? If the > object is transparency for local users, it should be possible in > database "test" to say "GRANT ... TO fred" and have "fred" understood as > "fred@test".
No changes have been made anywhere except for the username passed by the client. All reporting of user names and all administration go by their full pg_shadow username, so global user dave@ is dave in pg_shadow, and dave is dave@db1 in pg_shadow. One goal of this patch was a small footprint. > If that is the case, then I will support the current position. > > > It follows from the objective of transparency that, when reporting a > user name, local users should be reported without the database suffix, > i.e., "fred" not "fred@test". Global users should be reported with the > trailing "@". This should cause no problem, because we have no > cross-database communication; it should be impossible for "george@dummy" > to have any connection with database "test". Nope, none of this is done and I don't think there is a demand to do it. -- 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
