On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 06:01:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Oh, they're fully interchangeable at the wire level? Is this true both
> > with respect to the PG client/backend protocol and the protocol to the
> > authentication server?
>
> I believe tha
int
pg_fe_sendauth(AuthRequest areq, PGconn *conn, const char *hostname,
const char *password, char *PQerrormsg)
{
#ifndef KRB5
(void) hostname;/* not used */
#endif
...
(fe-auth.c)
What does that code actually *do*?
//Magnus
-
* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> That's for client. How should we go about doing it on the server side?
> Perhaps just add the ability to specify sspi as authentication method, to
> differentiate it from gss?
That certainly works for me, and makes sense to me.
Thanks!
* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> #ifndef KRB5
> (void) hostname;/* not used */
> #endif
[...]
> What does that code actually *do*?
Stop the compiler from complaining about an unused argument.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Desc
On 7/19/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
int
pg_fe_sendauth(AuthRequest areq, PGconn *conn, const char *hostname,
const char *password, char *PQerrormsg)
{
#ifndef KRB5
(void) hostname;/* not used */
#endif
...
(fe-auth.c)
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:41:17AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > #ifndef KRB5
> > (void) hostname;/* not used */
> > #endif
> [...]
> > What does that code actually *do*?
>
> Stop the compiler from complaining about an un
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:38:08AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > That's for client. How should we go about doing it on the server side?
> > Perhaps just add the ability to specify sspi as authentication method, to
> > differentiate it from gss?
>
>
* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Ok, I actually have this working now, pending a few cleanups.
Awesome!
> Do you have a dev box with 8.3 on it that you could run some tests on? I
> could send over a libpq.dll compiled to support both GSSAPI and SSPI (and
> krb5) and you could verify
* Magnus Hagander ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:41:17AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Stop the compiler from complaining about an unused argument.
>
> That makes sense, except my compiled didn't warn even when I took it out
> :-) Ah, well, thanks for clearifying.
It de
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, while I'm thinking of it --- it'd be real nice if the buildfarm
"configuration" printout included the flex and bison version numbers.
Interestingly, none of our tools actually outputs the bison
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Or, looking at it another way, why would we ever want the syslogger to
use the chunking protocol at all?
Ah, I misunderstood you. Yeah, I think you are right: if we are
special-casing the syslogger process anyway, then it ne
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, I think the attached patch will do what we need.
I think you could leave Redirect_stderr out of the elog.c tests
entirely, since redirection_done can never become set without it.
Also, you introduced a bug: pgwin32_is_service is a function no?
I have been thinking about where we are in the release process for 8.3.
I know we hoped for a July beta, but soon after the 8.3 feature freeze
it was clear that we weren't going to make that date. I am sure some
people are frustrated we are not closer to beta.
Looking at where we are now, there
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have been thinking about where we are in the release process for 8.3.
I know we hoped for a July beta, but soon after the 8.3 feature freeze
it was clear that we weren't going to make that date. I am sure some
people are frustrated we are not closer to beta.
Looking at
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have been thinking about where we are in the release process for 8.3.
> >
> > I know we hoped for a July beta, but soon after the 8.3 feature freeze
> > it was clear that we weren't going to make that date. I am sure some
> > people are frustra
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 19/07/07, 19:27:04
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.3 Release Schedule
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have been thinking about where we are in the release process for 8.3.
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anyway, I think the attached patch will do what we need.
I think you could leave Redirect_stderr out of the elog.c tests
entirely, since redirection_done can never become set without it.
Also, you introduced a bug: pgwin32_i
Dave Page wrote:
--- Original Message ---
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 19/07/07, 19:27:04
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.3 Release Schedule
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have been thinking about where we are in the release process for 8.3.
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Actually thinking about it, I think we should plan the next cycle
>> based on whatever ends up happening this time - eg. April freeze,
>> Aug-Sept beta, Oct release.
> I actually would be more inclined to have an even shorter cycl
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 16:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> As already noted, when we set the schedule we were not expecting to
> have so many large patches dropped on us at the very end of the devel
> cycle. What I'd like to think about is how can we avoid *that*
> happening again?
I think we can
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Dave Page wrote:
> >> Actually thinking about it, I think we should plan the next cycle
> >> based on whatever ends up happening this time - eg. April freeze,
> >> Aug-Sept beta, Oct release.
>
> > I actually would be more incline
Devrim G?ND?Z wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 16:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > As already noted, when we set the schedule we were not expecting to
> > have so many large patches dropped on us at the very end of the devel
> > cycle. What I'd like to think abou
All,
> > I think part of the problem is exactly that the freeze period has
> > stretched into summer, and so people aren't around for one reason or
> > another, and so it's going slower than one could wish.
So, push feature freeze up to Feb 1. That would give us 2-3 months of review
before "sum
23 matches
Mail list logo
