Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> ... Why would we reject a piece of useful functionality based on a
>> published standard?
>
> Well, size and maintainability of the proposed patch are certainly
> factors in any such decision. As a closely related example, I bet
> we'd have rejected the original Kerberos-support patch if we'd known
> then what we know now. It's been a constant source of bugs ever since
> it went in, and with so few users of the feature, it takes a long time
> to find the problems.
To be honest, I have often wondered *why* we support kerberos outside of
the uber l33t geek factor. I have not once in a commercial deployment
had a business requirement for the beast. LDAP? Now that is a whole
other issue :)
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
