> > 
> > >         Fork off the postgres process first, then authenticate
inside of
> > > there...which would get rid of the problem with pg_user itself
being a
> > > text file vs a relation...no?
> > 
> > Yes, yes, yes.  This is how authentication should be done (for HBA,
etc.)
> 
> No, no, no! For security reasons, you can't fork (and exec)
> unauthenticated processes. Especially HBA authentication should be
done
> to consume as low resources as possbile.

Startup time for a valid connect client is now < 0.16 secs, so is this
really a threat ?
I would say might leave hba to postmaster (since postgres don't need to
know about it)
then fork off postgres and do the rest of the authentication. 

Running postgres as root though is a **very** bad idea.
Remember that we have user defined Functions !

no, yes, yes 
Andreas

Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:33:00 +0100
Zeugswetter Andreas DBT <Andreas.Zeugswetter@telecom.at>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Zeugswetter Andreas DBT wrote:
 
> Running postgres as root though is a **very** bad idea.
> Remember that we have user defined Functions !

	postmaster nor postgres will run as root, so I'm not sure where
you are coming up with a "Running postgres as root..." problem :(



Fri, 16 Jan 1998 08:08:02 -0500 (EST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff