Thread: user meta (to the database, at least) information

    I've got a system that includes an admin tool that forces the
user to be logged into the database as the specific user.  Currently,
we synchronize password updates and such with ALTER USER statements,
but maintain some non-pg_shadow information in our own table.  I've
got a QA guy here who says "every other database I've worked with
lets people add their own fields to the user tables, why can't you
just do that".

    Is it safe to modify pg_shadow?  Is there a better way to do
this then (as we currently do) have the client scripting manage
the stuff seperately?  Should I spend some time using triggers
to abstract away the GRANT/ALTER statements?

--
Adam Haberlach            | All your base are belong to us.
adam@newsnipple.com       |
http://www.newsnipple.com |
'88 EX500    '00 >^<      |

Adam Haberlach <adam@newsnipple.com> writes:
> got a QA guy here who says "every other database I've worked with
> lets people add their own fields to the user tables, why can't you
> just do that".

Oh?  News to me.  How does he expect the system to fill the extra
fields?

>     Is it safe to modify pg_shadow?

Strikes me as pretty risky, but you *might* get away with adding
more fields at the end with NULL defaults.  Don't try to add indexes,
constraints, rules or triggers, as they won't work.

            regards, tom lane