| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <Dah(at)pdc(dot)kth(dot)se>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Kerberos patch in the queue |
| Date: | 2005-04-15 18:38:39 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C72E8@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Tom, assuming we fix this, are you fine with the concept?
>
>Mostly. Should the --with-krb-srvnam configure parameter go away?
>Or is it now seen as establishing an installation default? (Either
>way implies some documentation work.)
The original way kept it in there to establish an installation default.
I think that is a good idea (yes, it certainly has to be documented) to
keep it as such, and just allow it to be overridden (the same way you
can use --with-pgport to change the default port, but you can still
override it in postgresql.conf).
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2005-04-15 20:11:58 | Praise (was: [ADMIN] is postgresql 8 is realy mature) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-15 17:53:56 | Re: Kerberos patch in the queue |