I am agree with you, but if it is not a bug, what is the purpose for having sr_sheck_password property in pgpool.conf file?.
I think this property can confuse pgpool's users, for this reason I propose -1. If you understand that this feature should be present in Pgpool 3.2, I will agree with you too. Regards. ________________________________________ De: Guillaume Lelarge [[email protected]] Enviado el: domingo, 20 de noviembre de 2011 17:58 Para: Lazaro Rubén García Martinez CC: Tatsuo Ishii; [email protected] Asunto: RE: [Pgpool-general] Authentication method used for sr_check_password, health_check_password and recovery_password On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 17:24 -0430, Lazaro Rubén García Martinez wrote: > I think this feature is very important, because having trust acces in > pg_hba.conf is not a good idea. I understand that and I agree with you. The problem is not on the feature itself, but on which release it should be delivered. If the feature is really urgent to get out there, then we should release 3.2 quickly. We shouldn't put it in 3.1.whatever because 3.1.whatever could get out before 3.2. Minor releases shouldn't change behaviour apart from bugfixes. That's an important part of the trust you can have in a software. If we start to add features on bugfix releases, many people will stop doing minor updates on pgpool, afraid of bugs which might be included with new features. I know I'll do if this will happen, and I won't encourage my customers to upgrade their pgpool. So, definite +1 to add this feature to pgpool, +1 to add it to 3.2, -1 to add it as a bugfix in 3.1.1. It definitely is not a bugfix. -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com _______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
