Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yes, and it's an optional flag that could perfectly well be implemented
>> in the plugin that I think we do have consensus to add a hook for.
>> The argument is over why do we need to litter the core system with it.
> I already said that would suit me. The only other requirement I would
> have is a way for pgAdmin or other clients to figure out if that flag
> was set so they could construct queries appropriately (and yes, that
> could include refusing to send plain text passwords over non-SSL
> connections).
Well, if it's a GUC implemented by a plugin, it's still a GUC. All you
need is some side agreement between pgAdmin and potential GUC authors
about what the GUC will be called.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
