Re: [PATCHES] LDAP auth

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "Albe Laurenz" <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] LDAP auth
Date: 2006-03-06 20:26:57
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0F837@algol.sollentuna.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> >>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.

LDAP doesn't actually provide Single Sign On. It does provide Single
Login with Single Password. But you still have to type in your password
again for each login.

Kerberos provides single sign-on, where you just log in once and you're
done - no more password entry.

> 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.

Well, that does seem to be the flavour of the month though.. ;-)

//Magnus

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2006-03-06 20:43:40 Re: Coverity Open Source Defect Scan of PostgreSQL
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-03-06 20:02:18 Re: Coverity Open Source Defect Scan of PostgreSQL