Re: Is "trust" really a good default? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Is "trust" really a good default?
Date
Msg-id 200407132144.i6DLiJ802961@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is "trust" really a good default?  ("Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] Is "trust" really a good default?  (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > not to mention the
> >more basic problem that the comments will now be wrong.
>
> That, however, it is correct :-( Sloppy.
>
> How about a text along the line of:
> CAUTION: Configuring the system for "trust" authentication allows any
> local user to connect using any PostgreSQL user name, including the
> superuser, over either Unix domain sockets or TCP/IP. If you are on
> a multiple-user machine, this is probably not good. Change it to use
> something other than "trust" authentication.
>
>
>
> Or something along that line? Since it would no longer actually be
> default. Or do we want something like "On some installations, the
> default is..."?

Woh, I didn't think we agreed that the default would change from
'trust', only that we would now emit a warning and allow other
authentication methods to be specified at initdb time.

--
  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, Pennsylvania 19073

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Is "trust" really a good default?
Next
From: Mike Benoit
Date:
Subject: Re: Release planning (was: Re: Status report)