I think for one, mysql uses tables for all of its access control. Coding plesk/cpanel to modify pg_hba.conf and rehup postgres would take a bit more work, I would imagine.
Do we really want to pursue making PostgreSQL easier to admin for the non-system admin? Cpanel and plesk and like tools are pretty far down the list of important things to support or code for.
On 5/17/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:40:04PM -0400, Joshua Kramer wrote:
> Right, but if someone with PG and PHP skills put forth some effort to make
> Plesk / CPanel play well with PG, then the marketing efforts would be that
> much easier and the use of PG would probably increase. That's all that is
> being said here.
I understand that. But if the community is to take the argument
seriously, someone needs to say what "play well" means there. So far
I keep hearing that it doesn't, but only Robert Treat has suggested
any meaningful detail about what that means. Is that all we're
saying, that remote administration needs to be better?
If so, I would suggest that a worthy project would be something like
pg_remote_hand_daemon or something, which would be an optional
component that you could use to do remote control of a postgres
server. All the commands would go through the daemon, and it would
be responsible for communicating with the clients (you do it this way
to isolate the places where you have to work on the security model).
Then you have it perform the configuration tasks on the postgresql
node the way a human might do it -- alter the config file, SIGHUP,
&c. (This is if you want humans manually changing your database
systems, which I don't. That's what things like cfengine were
invented to stop.)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
--Alexander Hamilton
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend