I'm talking off the top of my head here as I've never looked specifically at
this, but it rings a bell at the back of my head.
Can't you change the ownership of a database?
Would it not be easy to create a user who cannot create other users or
databases, then create a database for that user and than change the ownership
of that database to the new user?
Gary
On Tuesday 21 August 2001 3:30 am, C. Bensend wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Chris Cameron wrote:
> > Actually, that's my exact same problem AND setup.
> >
> > Making a user that can create databases, but not users is a decent idea.
> > That's what I'll be doing for my more trusted users. However, beyond that
> > it looks like the only choice is to run multipule postmasters.
>
> Well, kinda... I don't want my users to be able to create
> databases. I only want them to create tables, modify
> tables, etc.
>
> _I_, as the hosting provider, will create the database for
> them. And I will add their user. From then on, said user
> should only be able to create/modify/drop tables, etc, WITHIN
> their own database.
>
> Is running multiple postmasters the _only_ way to achieve this?
> If so, this is not so good. :/
>
> Benny
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You see, we're leveraging the synergies of our existing open source
> solution, without reliance on a single vendor.
> Or in english: We use samba cause NT sucks ass.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
--
Gary Stainburn
This email does not contain private or confidential material as it
may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown
and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
