Greg Stark wrote:
>"Albe Laurenz" <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at> writes:
>
>
>
>>If your patch is accepted and a dependency on OpenLDAP is introduced,
>>my patch will provide an additional gain with no additional cost.
>>
>>
>
>Out of curiosity what would an SQL database want with ldap anyways?
>
>
>
Single Sign On is the obvious answer.
I find it hard to imagine LDAP being sensibly use for any other postgres
purpose than authentication, despite recent flights of fancy on the list
about storing large slabs of config data there.
cheersw
andrew