* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Yes, pre-1996. I think the fact that authentication/user names appear > > in pg_hba.conf really locked the user name idea into global objects, and > > we have never really been able to make a dent in that. > > Eh? Why would the presence of usernames in pg_hba.conf mean that they > have to be global objects?
I havn't had a chance (yet) to look, but perhaps the current code
attempts to validate the role before figuring out what database is being
requested? We'd have to essentially invert that, of course, for this..
One thing I was wondering about is if we're going to have an issue
supporting things like "tell me what databases exist" (psql -l), which
connect to the 'postgres' by default, for local-only roles. I'm not
sure that I actually care, to be honest, but it's something to consider.
I don't think we should require users to create every local role also in
postgres, nor do I feel that we should allow connections to postgres by
any role, nor do I want to break tools which use 'postgres' to basically
get access to shared catalogs- but I don't see an immediate or easy
solution..
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
