Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default? - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?
Date
Msg-id 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE34BE4E@algol.sollentuna.se
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
>>> The only part of this discussion that I'd really be prepared=20
>>> to buy into
>>> is the part about *if* you use -W or --pwfile, then set up
>pg_hba.conf
>>> with MD5 as the default auth (because that's probably what the user
>>> wants anyway).
>
>> Ok. Here is a patch that does this.
>
>... and rather severely mangles the comments, too;

Um, no, it doesn't. At least not on my installation.


> 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..."?


//Magnus

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: serverlog rotation/functions
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default?