> On 24 Jan 2025, at 22:45, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: > >> On 24 Jan 2025, at 21:07, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >> On 2025-01-22 We 4:25 AM, Dave Page wrote: > >>> Anyway, no fix was committed as far as I know. I would suggest it should be >>> back-patched as well. >> >> I'm quite partial to the approach suggested upthread by Andres (a separate >> pg_gssapi.h file). If there's agreement on that I'm prepared to go and make >> it happen, unless Daniel beats me to it. Backpatching also seems reasonable. > > Thanks for the reminder, I also agree that Andres' suggestion is the best > option. I hacked up a patch but got distracted by the pgcrypto GUC patch for > a > bit. I'll share what I have once I've done a little testing.
After another (conference induced) distraction I remembered this thread again and tested to build/test the patch against a GSSAPI enabled tree. I think this is along the right lines. -- Daniel Gustafsson
v1-0001-Move-GSSAPI-includes-into-its-own-header.patch
Description: Binary data
