On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> > * Users need to have superuser access to their OWN
> > databases
> > * Users should not have the ability to create users
> > or databases
> > * Users _need_ to be able to create tables, modify
> > tables, drop tables, etc
>
> Do they really need to be superusers, as opposed to just database
> owners? ISTM that what you are really after is simply that each
> user is the owner of his own database, and has no other special
> privileges.
Hey Tom,
I guess I might be misinterpreting the term "superuser"
in reguards to the database. "The owner of his own database"
is EXACTLY what I am looking for. The user should _not_ be
able to create databases, or users, etc. They should _only_
be able to add/alter/drop tables within their _own_ database.
I would be forever indebted if someone could tell me
_how_ to achieve this. I acknowledge the fact that I am a
complete newbie to DB administration. It's a fine art that
I'm just now diving into. DBA's are artists, while I am the
strange-looking fellow in the corner with a broom. ;)
Thank you for any 2X4's to the head,
Benny
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You see, we're leveraging the synergies of our existing open source
solution, without reliance on a single vendor.
Or in english: We use samba cause NT sucks ass.
--greg@rage.net
