Re: [PATCH v20] GSSAPI encryption support
Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>
From: Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>,
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-04-11T17:40:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > Robbie Harwood (rharwood@redhat.com) wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >>> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> If it was on the table it might have been better to keep hostgss >>>> and change the authentication method to gssauth or something, but >>>> that ship sailed *years* ago. >>> >>> Uh, did we consider keeping hostgss and changing the auth part at >>> the end to "gssauth"? >> >> I think that was implicitly rejected because we'd have to keep the >> capability to configure "gss" there else break compatibility. > > Right, if we changed the name of the auth method then everyone who is > using the "gss" auth method would have to update their pg_hba.conf > files... That would be very ugly. Also, it wasn't implicitly > rejected, it was discussed up-thread (see the comments between Magnus > and I, specifically, quoted above- "that ship sailed *years* ago") and > explicitly rejected. Apologies, you're right of course. I intended to say why *I* had rejected it but got bit by the passive voice. Thanks, --Robbie
Commits
-
GSSAPI encryption support
- b0b39f72b990 12.0 landed
-
Fix typo
- 57c932475504 9.6.0 cited