Re: weird libpq GSSAPI comment
Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Greetings, * Stephen Frost ([email protected]) wrote: > * Alvaro Herrera ([email protected]) wrote: > > On 2020-Jan-06, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > I wonder if part of the confusion might be due to the synonyms we're > > > > using here for "in use". Things seem to be "got running", "set up", > > > > "operating", "negotiated", ... - maybe that's part of the barrier to > > > > understanding? > > > > > > How about something like this? > > > > > > * If GSSAPI Encryption is enabled, then call pg_GSS_have_cred_cache() > > > * which will return true if we can acquire credentials (and give us a > > > * handle to use in conn->gcred), and then send a packet to the server > > > * asking for GSSAPI Encryption (and skip past SSL negotiation and > > > * regular startup below). > > > > WFM. (I'm not sure why you uppercase Encryption, though.) > > Ok, great, attached is an actual patch which I'll push soon if there > aren't any other comments. Pushed. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 819 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJeFfwQAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVaIUQALIgty12k3Cw8RcAnh7zrpHJ uZOb1xsiXY+1gj3DrDGBxUUK0XswmCHOs3q9OjK/ixBKnP08hwvuJqECETrwrvuO Qk8U9QQa7EevY23FP92e1PNXBBlb0YqviueF14LiXzc1fX+rYdupa9Ew5aKbHibJ NuVxcsS/fekWh37dgKmoEz69NrqpoiMHClJ9bFRLnc7vJJofg2HydLHVrcqYsI/l HPbinbL8H7NGphHpLKtcc0kvn5pXycYUBnfK0j2PIY6/E0rI2J2LPG8XgkgMAsLn 1jgkSRgNymQGiNFNOjlw0fKXD0yIsDFwhNCDArdVnHPIRwF/amtAqvTXNNyCCf5O 6D3qGBYsm/VDt085b+fscKE4rXTRK6v1Mz1H51ggH3sIvn1ndFv/eT+BSszXN20q U8ZifgasUgPsFzmIgdk2Cerg3Y9bXevoCd0p9XaS+92kDBnyeykaM1ZhOG1ZNgl9 gKrsDAXKOnxkciqT9YxLXIePXN84YDmbbZKnHCQOdjOwMYqTTc76+IVwF2VQTXhc 90yQd8FOyFwiiw1bwcaD0GdWn7Vxj4CrbaltFVKABMTCWyBnmk19rBvBwj5f+FJf 5cVRZ77rkboMaMN57fYH+LHLVWQKxGh5H/wz0/fCCk7fYU9CryevmuGCBX4yajz+ s82PmZ3POHE5fFhhgldv =Fx+D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----