Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:51:04PM -0700, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> > At the risk of diluting my message: I still think it's a mistake to > > call it gss instead of something like gss-noprot. I believe this > > will cause misunderstandings in the future when we get the security > > layer of gssapi implemented. > > Well, I don't agree with this, but if others want it changed, it can > certainly be changed. And it can only be changed *now*, and not once we > release. > > But we have "host" and "hostssl", not "hostnossl" and "host". So the way we > are donig it now is IMO more consistent with what we have in other parts of > pg. Actually we have "hostssl", "hostnossl" and "host". -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
