Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> OK, here is the request for vote. Do we want:
>
> 1) the old secondary passwords re-added
> 2) the new prefixing of the database name to the username when enabled
> 3) do nothing
I'd vote #3, for the following reasons:
- The functionality that Marc is worried about (in effect, allowing multiple database users with the same
name)is pretty obscure, and the implementation is even more so. I doubt whether there is *anyone* other than
Marcactually using it (if that's not the case, please speak up).
Given that it was completely undocumented and a pretty clear abuse of the existing code, I don't think
it'sunreasonable for us to break backward compatibility on this issue.
- The old way of doing things is broken, for reasons Bruce has elaborated on. Unless there's a
compellingreason why we *need* this feature in the standard distribution, I'd rather we not go back to
theold way of doing things.
- I'm not perfectly happy with the scheme Bruce suggested as an interim fix (#2). If we're going to
implementthis feature, let's do it properly. In particular, I'm not convinced that this feature is
urgentlyneeded enough to justify a short-term kludge, and I dislike using a GUC variable to toggle
betweentwo quite different authentication processes.
So I'd say leave things as they are. One thing I'd like to see anyway
is a more prominent listing of the client-visible incompatibilities in
the release notes -- I'd be content to add an entry to that list for
the 7.3 release and talk about a more elaborate scheme during the 7.4
development cycle.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC