From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Deprecations in authentication |
Date: | 2014-01-16 13:01:55 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEytVmjU=Bi+0QjGmUjH3Nt5uv+yRFCxanj=NyacOwZT0A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > One thing I noticed - in MSVC, the config parameter "krb5" (equivalent of
> > the removed --with-krb5) enabled *both* krb5 and gssapi, and there is no
> > separate config parameter for gssapi. Do we want to rename that one to
> > "gss", or do we want to keep it as "krb5"? Renaming it would break
> > otherwise working environments, but it's kind of weird to leave it...
>
> +1 for renaming --- anybody who's building with "krb5" and expecting to,
> you know, actually *get* krb5 would probably rather find out about this
> change at build time instead of down the road a ways.
>
> A compromise position would be to introduce a gss parameter while leaving
> krb5 in place as a deprecated (perhaps undocumented?) synonym for it.
> But I think that's basically confusing.
>
Yeah, I'm not sure it actually helps much.
Andrew - is this going to cause any issues wrt the buildfarm, by any chance?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-01-16 13:04:54 | Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it |
Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2014-01-16 12:38:06 | Re: drop duplicate buffers in OS |