From: | Robbie Harwood <rharwood(at)redhat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH v4] GSSAPI encryption support |
Date: | 2016-02-11 18:56:06 |
Message-ID: | jlglh6r5b5l.fsf@thriss.redhat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Robbie Harwood <rharwood(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> - The GSSAPI authentication code has been moved without modification.
>> In doing so, the temptation to modify it (flags, error checking, that
>> big comment at the top about things from Athena, etc.) is very large.
>> I do not know whether these changes are best suited to another patch
>> in this series or should be reviewed separately. I am also hesitant
>> to add things beyond the core before I am told this is the right
>> approach.
>
> I would recommend a different patch if code needs to be moved around.
> The move may make sense taken as an independent piece of the
> integration.
Sorry, are you suggesting separate patch for moving the GSS auth code,
or separate patch for changes to said code? I am happy to move it if
so, just want to be sure.
> + * Portions Copyright (c) 2015-2016, Red Hat, Inc.
> + * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2016, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> I think that this part may be a problem... Not sure the feeling of the
> others regarding additional copyright notices.
Good catch. That's an accident (force of habit). Since I'm pretty sure
this version won't be merged anyway, I'll drop it from the next one.
> It would be good to add that to the next CF, I will be happy to get a
> look at it.
Sounds good. Thanks for looking at it!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-11 18:59:16 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V16 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-11 18:45:30 | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |