On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:26:47AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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".
Good point. But the line that corresponds to what is currently called "gss" is "host" :) //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
