Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> (Actually, what I'd prefer it do is try first for username, and > >> then username@databasename if plain username isn't found.) > > > Yes, that would be very easy to do _except_ for pg_hba.conf which does a > > first-match for username. We could get into trouble there by trying two > > versions of the same name. Comments? > > Hm. I think we'd have to switch around the order of stuff so that we > look at the flat-file copy of pg_shadow first. Then we'd know which > flavor of name we have, and we can proceed with the pg_hba match. > > The reason it's worth doing this is that 'postgres', for example, should > be an installation-wide username even when you're using db-local names > for ordinary users.
Yes, that's why my code had a special case for 'postgres' or whatever super-user name it was installed with. I think it is cleaner to just read the install username. Also, right now, pg_pwd only contains usernames that have passwords, not all of them. > > This may require raising the length of NAME type to be backwards > > compatible. > >> > >> Right, but we're planning to do that anyway. > > > Yes, but that requires a protocol change, which we don't want to do for > > 7.3. > > What? We've been discussing raising NAMEDATALEN for months, and no > one's claimed that it qualifies as a protocol version change. I thought they were talking about increasing the length of the user NAME that comes of the wire. That is currently 32. I see now he was just talking about NAMEDATALEN. Good thing we are prepending the database name after receiving the name. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
