On 2013-01-16 12:34, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 2013-01-16 11:38, Sven Gehr wrote:
>> hi@...,
>>
>> is it correct that the postgres user owns the database bacula?
>>
>>
>>
>> postgres=# \l+
>>
>> List of databases
>> Name | Owner | Encoding | Collate | Ctype |
>> Access privileges | Size | Tablespace |
>> Description
>>
>>
>> -----------+----------+-----------+-------------+-------------+-----------------------+---------+------------+--------------------------------------------
>> bacula | postgres | SQL_ASCII | de_DE.UTF-8 | de_DE.UTF-8 |
>> | 7001 kB | pg_default |
>> postgres | postgres | UTF8 | de_DE.UTF-8 | de_DE.UTF-8 |
>> | 5897 kB | pg_default | default administrative
>> connection
>> database
>> template0 | postgres | UTF8 | de_DE.UTF-8 | de_DE.UTF-8 |
>> =c/postgres +| 5793 kB | pg_default | unmodifiable empty
>> database
>> | | | | |
>> postgres=CTc/postgres | | |
>> template1 | postgres | UTF8 | de_DE.UTF-8 | de_DE.UTF-8 |
>> =c/postgres +| 5897 kB | pg_default | default template for
>> new
>> databases
>> | | | | |
>> postgres=CTc/postgres | | |
>
> Are you seeing any problems? Should be OK.
>
> Mine is owned by bacula, and it's easily changed:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/sql-alterdatabase.html
The owner shouldn't matter as long as the permissions are correct for
the user, if you configured the Bacula Director to use postgres to
connect to the database, however that would be bad. It would work just
fine, but its a very bad security practice, and could allow access to
other databases on the server. If the server is dedicated to only the
Bacula database it wouldn't be as bad, but still not a good idea.
--
Thanks,
Dean E. Weimer
http://www.dweimer.net/
|