| From: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Naming of gss_accept_deleg |
| Date: | 2023-05-19 13:35:19 |
| Message-ID: | ZGd7F5ycNYiOXeuo@toroid.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 2023-05-19 09:16:09 -0400, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:07:26AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > > Why is the new PG 16 GUC called "gss_accept_deleg" and not
> > > "gss_accept_delegation"? The abbreviation here seems atypical.
> >
> > At the time it felt natural to me but I don't feel strongly about it,
> > happy to change it if folks would prefer it spelled out.
>
> Yes, please do spell it out, thanks. The fact "deleg" looks similar to
> "debug" also doesn't help.
Note that GSS-API itself calls it the "DELEG" flag:
if (conn->gcred != GSS_C_NO_CREDENTIAL)
gss_flags |= GSS_C_DELEG_FLAG;
I would also prefer a GUC named gss_accept_delegation, but the current
name matches the libpq gssdeleg connection parameter and the PGSSDELEG
environment variable. Maybe there's something to be said for keeping
those three things alike?
-- Abhijit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-05-19 13:42:00 | Re: Naming of gss_accept_deleg |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-05-19 13:16:09 | Re: Naming of gss_accept_deleg |