| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] LDAPS |
| Date: | 2018-01-02 16:31:22 |
| Message-ID: | d534cc9c-99ec-dae7-5b39-46e6ec60d324@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/26/17 15:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> This patch looks reasonable to me. I have also seen occasional requests
> for this in the field.
>
> If someone could test this on Windows, I think we could move ahead with it.
A small point on the test changes. You change the test under
"diagnostic message", but I'm not sure why. Do the changes invalidate
the existing test?
We should probably also add another "note" call to introduce the LDAPS
tests section.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-02 16:40:26 | Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-02 16:16:31 | Re: Better testing coverage and unified coding for plpgsql loops |