Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> However, that doesn't change that some people would like us to support
> GSSAPI, and there may be some benefit (additional applications, better
> network authentication, etc.) for doing so. If we can get additional
> programmers to code the support (i.e. Sun, JPL) I don't see any reason
> not to support the *additional* authentication methods.
Well, as I said already, a lot depends on the size of the patch.
As a reductio ad absurdum, if they drop 100K lines of code on us,
it *will* get rejected, no matter how cool it is.
The current Kerberos support seems to require about 50 lines in
configure.in and circa 200 lines of C code in each of the backend
and libpq. Plus a dependency on an outside library that happens
to be readily available and compatibly licensed.
What amount of code are we talking about adding here, and what
dependencies exactly? What portability and license hazards will
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-09-29 03:53:29|
|Subject: Re: New version of money type|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-09-29 03:23:30|
|Subject: Re: New version of money type |