Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <> writes:
>> ... Why would we reject a piece of useful functionality based on a 
>> published standard?
> Well, size and maintainability of the proposed patch are certainly
> factors in any such decision.  As a closely related example, I bet
> we'd have rejected the original Kerberos-support patch if we'd known
> then what we know now.  It's been a constant source of bugs ever since
> it went in, and with so few users of the feature, it takes a long time
> to find the problems.

To be honest, I have often wondered *why* we support kerberos outside of
the uber l33t geek factor. I have not once in a commercial deployment
had a business requirement for the beast. LDAP? Now that is a whole
other issue :)

Joshua D. Drake

>                       regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project:

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to