X-Original-To: pgsql-committers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E2B535B1 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:17:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73683-04 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:16:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E9C535A7 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:16:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3Q5GsOR028108; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:16:54 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: Mention that PAM requires the user already exist in the database, In-reply-to: <20050426030113.C9CC4534F8@svr1.postgresql.org> References: <20050426030113.C9CC4534F8@svr1.postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to momjian@svr1.postgresql.org (Bruce Momjian) message dated "Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:01:13 -0300" Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:16:54 -0400 Message-ID: <28107.1114492614@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200504/434 X-Sequence-Number: 17357 momjian@svr1.postgresql.org (Bruce Momjian) writes: > Mention that PAM requires the user already exist in the database, per > Dick Davies. 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? regards, tom lane