Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, we need to talk about that. I like your idea of making ident auth
>> "just work" on local connections better than Oliver's approach of
>> inventing a separate auth-type keyword.
> This is exactly what I would not like to see. "ident" defines a specific
> protocol, with an ident server. ident over something not TCP/IP doesn't
> make sense, it could confuse admins. Just because it works similar
> doesn't mean it is the same. In particular, the security issues are
> completely different.
Well, ISTM this is a documentation issue. We've already committed the
patch using "ident" as the keyword, so I'd prefer to leave it that way
and improve the docs as necessary.
regards, tom lane
PS: welcome back! Hope you had a pleasant vacation.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
