On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-10-22 16:47:09 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Hm, and that's why you chose this way of going. My main concern about >> this patch is that it adds on top of the existing Postgres protocol a >> layer to encrypt and decrypt the messages between server and client >> based on GSSAPI. All messages transmitted between client and server >> are changed to 'g' messages on the fly and switched back to their >> original state at reception. This is symbolized by the four routines >> you added in the patch in this purpose, two for frontend and two for >> backend, each one for encryption and decryption. I may be wrong of >> course, but it seems to me that this approach will not survive >> committer-level screening because of the fact that context-level >> things invade higher level protocol messages. > > Agreed. At least one committer here indeed thinks this approach is not > acceptable (and I've said so upthread).
OK, so marked as returned with feedback. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers