| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Volker Aßmann <volker(dot)assmann(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Disabling trust/ident authentication configure option |
| Date: | 2015-05-20 17:59:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20150520175916.GB5885@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> As such, proposals are more likely to be successful if the proposer can
> show how they apply to a general use case, or adapt them so that they
> are useful to a large number of our users. This means that "this works
> in our environment which has conditions X, Y, and Z" is not an effective
> argument, unless you can follow it up with "... and here's the reason
> why [large class of users] also has conditions X, Y and Z."
The proposal here is to have a configure argument that disables
arbitrary auth mechanisms. How is that specific to a particular
environment?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-05-20 18:04:10 | Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-20 17:55:00 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE/IGNORE 4.0 |