> > We are using Jan's cache fix already. I just tried it and it works.
> > And it means it doesn't show up in \d, and a user can't accidentally
> > delete it. Sounds like a real winner.
>
> Sounds really good - if we can be sure that the pg_ prefix of
> a view never collides with the IsSystemRelationName() tests
> somewhere (there are many). You got me. Let's leave all
> postgres specific stuff in pg_*.
OK, we are basically creating it with a different name, then moving in
into the pg_ namespace with UPDATE pg_class.
> But as it was done in most UN*X's, could we rename the
> pg_user containing the password into pg_shadow and then
> create a view pg_user that just stars out the password field?
> This way no existing application code (not even the JDBC
> etc.) needs any changes, except for the createuser etc.
> tools that always get installed with the new release.
The only problem with that is that the database administrator now should
deal with pg_shadow, and not pg_user, and pg_user is not a real table
anymore. Actually, in Unix, this is true too. I don't think we can
change the real table to pg_shadow this close to a release, can we?
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
