Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > I will object to any scheme that makes any characters in the user name
> > > magic. Two reasons: First, do it right, make a separate column.
> > > Second, several tools use URI syntax to specify data sources. This will
> > > break any feature that relies on being able to put special characters into
> > > the user name.
> > >
> > > The right solution to having database-local user names is putting extra
> > > information into pg_shadow regarding which database this user applies to.
> > > It could be an array or some separate "authentication domain" thing.
> >
> > OK, if you object, you can say goodbye to this feature for 7.3. I can
> > supply the patch to Marc and anyone else who wants it but I am not
> > inclined nor convinced we need that level of work for this feature.
> >
> > So we end up with nothing.
>
> Stupid qustion .. but why can't you just add a 'domain' column to
> pg_passwd/pg_shadow so that its stored as two fields instead of one?
> Which I believe is what Pter is/was suggesting ...
Right now, pg_pwd only dumps users with passwords, and as I remember, it
is only accessed when the protocol needs to lookup a password. It
wasn't designed for anything more advanced. If you want separate
columns, you have to dump out everyone, and modify CREATE USER,
createuser, ALTER USER, ... to handle those new domain names, and you
have to make this API visible to everyone even if they are not using
domains. That's where things really get ugly.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
