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
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