Re: Open 7.3 items

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 Marc actually
		  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's unreasonable
          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 compelling reason why we
          *need* this feature in the standard distribution, I'd rather
          we not go back to the old way of doing things.

        - I'm not perfectly happy with the scheme Bruce suggested as
          an interim fix (#2). If we're going to implement this
          feature, let's do it properly. In particular, I'm not
          convinced that this feature is urgently needed enough to
          justify a short-term kludge, and I dislike using a GUC
          variable to toggle between two 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