Re: Open 7.3 items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Open 7.3 items
Date
Msg-id 200208161730.g7GHU3S23451@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Open 7.3 items  (Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>)
Responses Re: Open 7.3 items  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > Once again: *no one* has at any time suggested that any form of this
> > patch should affect the default behavior in the slightest.
> 
> Not yet they haven't.  What happens when it's decided that this
> *feature* is a good thing and should be the default?   Maybe not
> now, but can you guarantee that that won't happen in say 7.4?  Or
> maybe 8.0?  I can hear it now, "Well we're giving you an entire
> version to change your scripts".


I can't argue hypothetical with you, but if we decided to make this a
default behavior, we would probably push the functionality down into
CREATE USER, create a new column in pg_shadow, lengthen the username
passed from the client, and do it that way.  However, because it is not
on by default _and_ we don't want to add visibility to a functionality
that is off by default, we are doing it this way.

Remember, non-local users already have an @ in their username.  I am
just adding @ to the global users too. This functionality actually
allows you to keep your old users in pg_shadow and once you turn on the
feature, those users become unusable.  When you turn the feature off,
they are back again.

I know the trailing @ is ugly, but it prevents surpises when connecting
to the database.

> There's not even a consensus that this is the right way to do it,
> you even said you'd prefer it was implemented in another way but
> don't have the time to do it.  Since when does this group rush to
> stuff features in without agreement even on HOW to implement it?

This is an argument I don't want to bow to.  How many features have we
left undone, for release after release, because we couldn't find a
perfect way to do it, so we did nothing, and users went elsewhere for
their database needs?   We have had enough discussion to know that there
isn't a perfect solution in this case, so we are going to implement the
best we can, and if we have to revisit it in 8.0, so be it.  I am sure
you will still be around to help craft that solution.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug/Change in behavior for 7.3 vs 7.2.1
Next
From: Vince Vielhaber
Date:
Subject: Re: Open 7.3 items