On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 19:32, Wim Bertels wrote: > On Friday 23 September 2005 01:51, Scott Marlowe seinde rooksignalen: > > Instead of using a general purpose account, why not give everyone an > > account, then make them a member of a group, and give that group the > > access. > > > > That way you can easily add / remove people from the group instead of > > trying to do it this way. > > not an option, its for scripting and testing purposes I don't see why my method(s) excludes scripting and testing. > > > > Otherwise, don't use a password, set the machine to use trust or ident or > > something like that where a password wouldn't matter. > > although it is then a user/pasword known by a lot of people, > it is still beter than no password No, it really isn't. Once everyone (or a large enough subset of everyone) knows the password, it's no better than an account that can log in without one. If it's a generic read only account with the same name as the database, give it select only permission, and add a line like this: host sameuser all 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 trust where the 10.1.1.1 / 255.255.255.0 are replaced with the appropriate mask to let your test machines log in. Put the host / md5 lines after this one for the same line but with all in place of sameuser and you're gold. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
