Re: SSPI authentication - patch

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> That's true, but if we used upper-case with something NEW (SSPI) while
>> keeping it the same for the OLD (KRB5, and I'd vote GSSAPI) then we're
>> not breaking backwards compatibility while also catering to the masses.
>> I guess I don't see too many people using SSPI w/ an MIT KDC, and it
>> wasn't possible previously anyway.
>>
>> What do you think?

> Hmm. It makes the default a lot less clear, and opens up for confusion.
> So I'm not so sure I like it :-)

A non-backward-compatible behavior change is going to cause a lot of
confusion too.

If I have things straight (and I'm not sure I do) then we are treating
sspi as a different type of auth method. It would be sane, or at least
explainable, to have a different default name for the different auth
method. I think a platform-dependent default would seriously suck,
and changing the default behavior for existing configurations would
break things. So Stephen's suggestion seemed plausible to me.

regards, tom lane