On 2/7/08, rahul <Rahul.G.Nair at sun.com> wrote: > [Peter Tribble:] > | > Shouldn't we think about collapsing the two users for postgres and mysql > | > into a single dbuser ? > | > | Doesn't seem advantageous to me - I can quite imagine > | scenarios where both databases would be running on a single > | box for quite different purposes. > > It would mean different users for every piece of software we integrate. > and unnecessary administrative overhead for these. Is this useful > enough to justify it?
Definitely. > What are the chances of having different types of databases running on > the same system? _and where the administrator of both has to be different_? Pretty high. The idea here is to provide ready to run software stacks. Many applications strongly prefer a particular database (SQL varies quite a bit, unfortunately). I'm thinking about applications stacks in which the database is treated more as an embedded component rather than as an application in its own right. I'll turn the question around - given that you might have two independent applications which have two different databases underneath them, why would you even consider using the same username/userid? (It gets worse - on my consolidated oracle boxes the different oracle instances run under different usernames. Of course, if we were to do that again we would separate them with zones instead.) > The same holds true for other server software too, like webservers (we > are integrating apache and lightd, and we are going with webserverd as > the user for these.) I'm actually wondering about the general usefulness of the supplied usernames. In fact, thinking about this reminds me that if a mysql user is ever supplied by default then I'll need to delete that user so as not to conflict with the existing mysql account on my servers. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
