* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > Or we try to make it work. I don't think the idea is inherently bad, > and I know there are people (like ISPs) who would like to have it > work properly. Maybe in these days when most people are on dedicated > VMs this matters less, but I don't think shared database servers are > totally dead yet.
Agreed. There are certainly pretty big hosting companies out there which are already doing multi-tenant PG, but they're using their own approaches instead of anything we provide (because what we provide sucks, basically..). > The docs say: > > db_user_namespace causes the client's and server's user name > representation to differ. Authentication checks are always done with > the server's user name so authentication methods must be configured > for the server's user name, not the client's. Because md5 uses the > user name as salt on both the client and server, md5 cannot be used > with db_user_namespace. > > Is that the only major issue? Why not have the server strip out the > @db part if this is on? If we made this an initdb-time setting > rather than a GUC then we'd remove the problems caused by turning > this on and off. I'm not sure what other problems that might cause, > but it doesn't seem totally intractable at first glance. Isn't the other issue for ISPs essentially that we don't have row-level security for our global catalogs? as in- we can't limit what's in pg_authid to only those entries a given user should be able to see? I don't think db_user_namespace addresses that issue (but I didn't go look either). Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature