On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I quickly read through the patch, trying to understand what exactly is
> happening here. To me the way the patch is split doesn't make much sense
> - I don't mind incremental patches, but right now the steps don't
> individually make sense.
I agree with Andres. While I looked a bit at this patch, I just had a
look at them a whole block and not individually.
> On 2015-07-02 14:22:13 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> [Andres' comments]
Here are some comments on top of what Andres has mentioned.
@@ -636,6 +636,7 @@ PGAC_ARG_BOOL(with, gssapi, no, [build with GSSAPI support],
I think that using a new configure variable like that with a dedicated
file fe-secure-gss.c and be-secure-gss.c has little sense done this
way, and that it would be more adapted to get everything grouped in
fe-auth.c for the frontend and auth.c for the backend, or move all the
GSSAPI-related stuff in its own file. I can understand the move
though: this is to imitate OpenSSL in a way somewhat similar to what
has been done for it with a rather generic set if routines, but with
GSSAPI that's a bit different, we do not have such a set of routines,
hence based on this argument moving it to its own file has little
sense. Now, a move that would make sense though is to move all the
GSSAPI stuff in its own file, for example pg_GSS_recvauth and
pg_GSS_error for the backend, and you should do the same for the
frontend with all the pg_GSS_* routines. This should be as well a
refactoring patch on top of the actual feature.
diff --git a/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-secure-gss.c
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
You should add a proper header to those new files.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: