> The point of the proposal that I am making is to have a simple, > low-maintenance solution for people who need a single-application > database. A compromise somewhere in the middle isn't likely to be an > improvement for anybody. For instance, if you want to have additional > connections, you open up a whole collection of communication and > authentication issues, which potential users of a single-application > database don't want to cope with.
Yes, exactly. In fact, most of the folks who would want an embedded PostgreSQL either want no authentication at all, or only a single password. So supporting authentication options other than trust or md5 is not required, or desired AFAIK. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
