Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >>> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>>> Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> If it was on the table it might have been better to keep hostgss >>>> and change the authentication method to gssauth or something, but >>>> that ship sailed *years* ago. >>> >>> Uh, did we consider keeping hostgss and changing the auth part at >>> the end to "gssauth"? >> >> I think that was implicitly rejected because we'd have to keep the >> capability to configure "gss" there else break compatibility. > > Right, if we changed the name of the auth method then everyone who is > using the "gss" auth method would have to update their pg_hba.conf > files... That would be very ugly. Also, it wasn't implicitly > rejected, it was discussed up-thread (see the comments between Magnus > and I, specifically, quoted above- "that ship sailed *years* ago") and > explicitly rejected.
Apologies, you're right of course. I intended to say why *I* had rejected it but got bit by the passive voice. Thanks, --Robbie
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
