Re: [PATCH] Add an ldapoption to disable chasing LDAP referrals

From: James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)lisasoft(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
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: 2013-07-09 01:33:22
Message-ID: CANkGpBtabjA=k_phdPNSUsWQMYkz1CvB4=aO2HJy_6-f5SZUsA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hey,

New patch attached. I've moved from using a boolean to an enum trivalue.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers,
James

James Sewell
PostgreSQL Team Lead / Solutions Architect
_____________________________________

[image:
http://www.lisasoft.com/sites/lisasoft/files/u1/2013hieghtslogan_0.png]

Level 2, 50 Queen St,
Melbourne, VIC, 3000

P: 03 8370 8000 F: 03 8370 8099 W: www.lisasoft.com

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

>
> 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/
>

--

------------------------------
The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal or
professional privilege and copyright. No representation is made that this
email is free of viruses or other defects. If you have received this
communication in error, you may not copy or distribute any part of it or
otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please advise the sender of your
incorrect receipt of this correspondence.

Attachment Content-Type Size
pgsql_ldapnochaseref_v1.2.diff application/octet-stream 3.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-07-09 01:33:32 Re: Should we automatically run duplicate_oids?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2013-07-09 01:25:44 Should we automatically run duplicate_oids?