Re: GSSAPI, SSPI - include_realm default

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 05:40:35PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > I thought the idea was to backpatch documentation saying "it's a good idea
>> > to change this value to x because of y". Not actually referring to the
>> > upcoming change directly. And I still think that part is a good idea, as it
>> > helps people avoid potential security pitfalls.
>>
>> I agree with this but I don't really see why we wouldn't say "hey, this
>> is going to change in 9.5." Peter's argument sounds like he'd rather we
>> not make any changes to the existing documentation, and I don't agree
>> with that, and if we're making changes then, imv, we might as well
>> comment that the default is changed in 9.5.
>
> I agree with Peter --- it is unwise to reference a future released
> feature in a backbranch doc patch. Updating the backbranch docs to add
> a recommendation is fine.

I am strongly in agreement with that principle as well.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company