* Peter Eisentraut ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > So as far as I can tell, the available options -U and -W serve all the > existing use cases. I would have no issue with getting rid of the -W option > if someone wants to take responsibility for ensuring that it will really > never be necessary. I see no technical or usability merit in reviving the -u > option. I hope the above explanations have shed some light on that.
I think getting rid of -W would cause a problem w/ PAM in some instances
since, iirc, PG will try PAM w/o a password first and only prompt if it
doesn't work. That's pretty ugly if you're using things like pam_tally
to limit the number of bad attempts allowed. (This is entirely
empirical, it's possible there's some other explanation for what's
happening, but I recall having to use -W to get PG to not cause PAM to
make noisies in my auth.log...).
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
