From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)lisasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add an ldapoption to disable chasing LDAP referrals |
Date: | 2013-07-04 10:23:54 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEwRjvyQL6cZ8uRZMGbA7H=RmemarxbpkxSQ5DRCdTT=dw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:30 AM, James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)lisasoft(dot)com>wrote:
> Heya,
>
> I see what you are saying, the problem as I see it is that the action we
> are taking here is "disable chasing ldap referrals". If the name is
> ldapreferrals and we use a boolean then setting it to 1 reads in a counter
> intuitive manner:
>
That assumes that the default in the ldap library is always going to be to
chase them. Does the standard somehow mandate that it should be?
"set ldapreferals=true to disable chasing LDAP referrals."
>
You'd obviously reverse the meaning as well. "set ldapreferals=false to
disable chasing LDAP referrals."
Perhaps you are fine with this though if it's documented? It does work in
> the inverse way to pam_ldap, where setting to true enables referral
> chasing. pam_ldap works like so:
>
> not set : library default
> set to 0 : disable referral chasing
> set to 1 : enable referral chasing
>
>
That is exactly what I'm suggesting it should do, and I'm pretty sure
that's what Peter suggested as well.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2013-07-04 11:04:07 | Re: [9.3 bug fix] ECPG does not escape backslashes |
Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2013-07-04 09:31:50 | Re: in-catalog Extension Scripts and Control parameters (templates?) |