Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff

On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Martin J. Laubach wrote:

>   So, if postmaster can't access the system tables for authentication
> purposes, why not have one child forked, connected to the main
> postmaster process via some IPC mechanism, whose only purpose
> in life it is to answer SQL-queries for postmaster.
>
>     mjl
>
>

I would have to say "footprint".  All the code for the backend has been
incorporated into the postmaster.  The postmaster is nothing more than a
backend run with some special command line options.  The postgres executable
is over 1 MB large and is a static executable.  This is quite a bit of
(virtual) memory.   I realize that memory is cheap these days, but to
have all the backend code included in with the postmaster and not have it
useable is a waste of resources.  To then have a second instance running
would take more resources.

If we must maintain user authorization in the postmaster, then I believe
it would be best to strip this code from the postgres executable to
create a postmaster with a smaller footprint.  Furthermore, the postmaster
should be made capable of performing heapscans, so that it could at least
view the data in the system catalog.  Then all the data needed for each
authentication method (or a single method if we incorporated the best
aspects of each method into one super authentication method), could be
stored in the system catalog.  This information could then be managed by the
CREATE/ALTER USER statements, which would alleviate the need to edit flat
files for system configuration.

Todd A. Brandys
brandys@eng3.hep.uiuc.edu