From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Mention that PAM requires the user already exist in the
	database,
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:23:33 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
References: <20050426030113.C9CC4534F8@svr1.postgresql.org>
	<28107.1114492614@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <28107.1114492614@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200504290023.34183.peter_e@gmx.net>

Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't recall exactly what Dick suggested, but the patch as applied
> seems like fairly useless verbiage.  Exactly which of our other auth
> methods allow users who *don't* exist in the database to log in?
> And why would anyone find it surprising that this does not happen?

I think the difference is that PAM carries a user list of its own, and 
users might be led to believe that it's enough to create a user in the 
PAM system and it will automatically exist in the database.

With the other authentication methods, there is no external user list.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/