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 that's the
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
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 unused
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?
That
* 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 it
* 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 depends
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
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
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,
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 frustrated we are
--- 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.
I know we
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:
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.
I
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 cycle release
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 set
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 inclined to have an even
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 about is how
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 summer
23 matches
Mail list logo
