* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Josh Berkus <email@example.com> 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.
Funny, I really wonder why you feel there's few users of it. I use kerberos auth on quite a few hosts and I've heard of at least a couple others on this (not all that frequented) list. Kerberos is really rather popular, made more so through SSPI and GSSAPI... Thanks Stephen
Description: Digital signature