Subject | RE: [Firebird-Architect] Re: Create User Proposal |
---|---|
Author | Leyne, Sean |
Post date | 2004-09-24T02:59:24Z |
Alexander,
(Active|Inactive as I would suggest) the user status is stored in the
security database and applies to all databases -- so this would not be a
good thing.
In the long run with moving user security to an external source;
- what effect would making a user inactive have for a database?
- does this feature make sense in that model (external security)?
- what error message would they receive when they try to attach a
database?
Sean
> > From: Jim Starkey <jas@...>beginning
> > I propose that we add the following commands to Firebird SQL
> > with 2.0 (if possible):Interesting idea... not sure about the practical benefit
> >
> > create user <username> [set] password <quoted string>
> > alter user <username> [[set] password <quoted string>]
> > drop user <username>
>
> Now that is a feature I would appreciate, because it will
> allow me to create/store entire database configuration
> with a single sql script.
>
> Also, perhaps the concept of 'disabling' user can be
> added, as in alter user <username> [enable|disable];
> Which is useful to temporarily deny some user DB accessActually, remember within the current FB design, Enable|Disable or
> without losing all grants on him.
(Active|Inactive as I would suggest) the user status is stored in the
security database and applies to all databases -- so this would not be a
good thing.
In the long run with moving user security to an external source;
- what effect would making a user inactive have for a database?
- does this feature make sense in that model (external security)?
- what error message would they receive when they try to attach a
database?
Sean