* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.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...



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to