| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Volker Aßmann <volker(dot)assmann(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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 18:10:30 |
| Message-ID: | 23809.1432145430@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 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?
I think Josh's question is whether the feature is actually useful to
a large class of users.
One reason why it would not be, if it's a build-time decision,
is that it's quite unlikely that any popular packagers would build
that way. So this would only be applicable to custom-built binaries,
which is a pretty small class of users to begin with.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Harbulot | 2015-05-20 18:12:53 | Re: Problems with question marks in operators (JDBC, ECPG, ...) |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2015-05-20 18:10:12 | Re: Improving GEQO |