From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unix-domain socket support on Windows |
Date: | 2019-08-07 15:15:59 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEwW4dg8p4XKOO5a8dZ=J-XyTF+eCaQsAnRB1VEVLNLKYQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:59 PM Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2019-08-07 16:06, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Am I reading the patches correctly, that getpeereid() still doesn't work
> > on Windows? That means that peer authentication doesn't work, right?
> > That's a bit sad. One of the big advantages of unix domain sockets over
> > TCP is peer authentication.
>
> Correct, it's not supported. I think it's plausible that they will add
> this in the future.
>
Does it work well enough that SSPI auth can run over it? SSPI auth with the
local provider gives you more or less the same results as peer, doesn't it?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-07 15:39:32 | Re: is necessary to recheck cached data in fn_extra? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-07 15:08:57 | Re: Grouping isolationtester tests in the schedule |