On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> It had such limited usefulness ('password' only, only crypted-hashed
> passwords in the file) that it doesn't make much sense to resurect it.
It had limited usefulness to you ... but how many sites out there are
going to break when they try to upgraded without it there? I do agree
that it needs to improved / replaced, but without a suitable replacement
in place, the old should be resurrected until such a suitable one is in
place ...
> I know you object, so I am going to ask for a vote.
How can you request a vote of such a limited audience? *Adding*
functionality is easy ... removing functionality with at least a release
for-warning is easy ... removing a feature without any forewarning is akin
to cutting our own throats ...
> OK, here is the request for vote. Do we want:
>
> 1) the old secondary passwords re-added
> 2) the new prefixing of the database name to the username when enabled
> 3) do nothing
If 2 can be done in such a way to be transparent, as well as to allow a
database owner to be able to create users for his/her database, then I
think it would be great ... and would far exceed what we have now ...
If you can't do 2 as a complete solution, which, IMHO, includes a db owner
being able to create db.users for his own database, then my vote is for 1
... if 2 can be done completely, then I vote for 2, as it would definitely
be much more useful ...
Hrmmm ... I was just thinking of another scenario where such a feature
would be great ... educational. The ability to setup a database server,
but to give a professor a database for a course that he could create
'accounts' for each of the students ...
