Dave Page wrote: > I never said it wasn't - in fact I said from the outset it was about > box-checking, and that anyone doing things properly will use > LDAP/SSPI/Kerberos etc.
I don't understand why the box-checkers can't already check that box; with the explanation stating "Yes - by using LDAP or GSSAPI or PAM configured accordingly". Or do checkbox-lists specifically say "can postgres do XYZ with all OS security features disabled". > Anyway, as noted in the message you quoted, the current proposal will > allow my colleagues to check boxes, and will be implemented in a > sensible way on the server side. And it's entirely confined to a > plugin, so if you trust all your users, there's no need for you to > load it at all. Note that I'm not horribly against the feature (though I wouldn't use it) --- just that ISTM we're checkbox-compliant already by working with the OS, and it's perhaps more a documentation issue than coding issue to get those boxes checked. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
