Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps I'm missing something obvious (and if so, I'm sorry) but
> couldn't we just build up the character array in PQsetdbLogin to be
> passed in to connectOptions1?
That's a possibility too, though by the time you've finished building
that string (with
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This is probably not a good idea --- changing the API behavior in
> pursuit of saving a few cycles is just going to get people mad at us.
Fair enough.
> I think we'd have to refactor the code so that PQsetdbLogin gets a
> PQconninfoOption array, overrides v
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Right offhand I like the idea of pushing it into connectOptions2 --- can
>> you experiment with that? Seems like there is no reason to call
>> Kerberos if the user supplies the name to connect as.
> Patch attache
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Right offhand I like the idea of pushing it into connectOptions2 --- can
> you experiment with that? Seems like there is no reason to call
> Kerberos if the user supplies the name to connect as.
Patch attached. After looking through the code around this I
