Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Krb5 multiple DB connections

2006-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The attached patch fixes a bug which was originally brought up in May of 2002 in this thread: Now that I've looked at it, I find this patch seems fairly wrongheaded. AFAICS the entire point of the original coding is to allow the setup work needed to

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Krb5 multiple DB connections

2006-02-08 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The attached patch fixes a bug which was originally brought up in May of 2002 in this thread: Now that I've looked at it, I find this patch seems fairly wrongheaded. AFAICS the entire point of the original

Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Krb5 multiple DB connections

2006-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have little idea of how expensive the operations called by pg_krb5_init really are. If they are expensive then it'd probably make sense to keep the current static variables but treat 'em as a one-element cache, ie, recompute if a new user name is

Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] date overflows

2006-02-08 Thread Tom Lane
Kris Jurka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 07:53:23PM -0500, Kris Jurka wrote: I'm seeing some date input overflows here. This seems to fix it. Applied as far back as 8.0 (a rather arbitrary cutoff but seemed reasonable). regards, tom lane