Re: Password sub-process ... - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sander Steffann
Subject Re: Password sub-process ...
Date
Msg-id 004101c237f5$8d33e9a0$64c8a8c0@balefire10ww
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Password sub-process ...  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

> I am wondering if we could have a configure-time or install-time
> option to make pg_shadow (and pg_group I guess) be database-local
> instead of installation-wide.  I am not sure about the implications
> of this --- in particular, is the notion of a database owner still
> meaningful?  How could the postmaster cope with it (I'd guess we'd
> need multiple flat files, one per DB, for the postmaster to read)?

I realy like the idea, but how would you handle the postgres (super)user in
this scenario? One global postgres user, or a separate one for each db? In
the last case, the DB owner would be the DB-specific postgres user. A global
superuser would still be needed for backups and other maintainance tasks...

Sander




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "eutm"
Date:
Subject: Patch for "Bug of PL/pgSQL parser"
Next
From: cbbrowne@cbbrowne.com
Date:
Subject: Table inheritance versus views