> Is this ready to be applied. It looks fine to me. I want to remove the
> part of the patch that keeps the old structure definitions at the top,
> but other than that, it looks good. Is there something that needs
> improving about it?
I've been working with it a little and it appears that somet
> OK, please let me know. Thanks.
I haven't taken the time to check the current state of the
authentication code and am relying on my old work on it. Would it be
worth me taking the time to try to rework it in a better manner?
>>>-->
--
+-+---+--
I don't think any of that has changed, if that is what you are asking.
---
Ed Schaller wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> > OK, please let me know. Thanks.
>
> I haven't taken the time to check the current state of t
OK, please let me know. Thanks.
---
Ed Schaller wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> > Is this ready to be applied. It looks fine to me. I want to remove the
> > part of the patch that keeps the old structure definiti
Is this ready to be applied. It looks fine to me. I want to remove the
part of the patch that keeps the old structure definitions at the top,
but other than that, it looks good. Is there something that needs
improving about it?
---
Ed Schaller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 2
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
only one user per process in libpq with krb5 auth
Long Description
Most of the kerberos authentication information used to authenticate a connection to
the server with
