Why is the new PG 16 GUC called "gss_accept_deleg" and not
"gss_accept_delegation"? The abbreviation here seems atypical.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.
Greetings,
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> Why is the new PG 16 GUC called "gss_accept_deleg" and not
> "gss_accept_delegation"? The abbreviation here seems atypical.
At the time it felt natural to me but I don't feel strongly about it,
happy to change it if folks would prefer it spe
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:07:26AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > Why is the new PG 16 GUC called "gss_accept_deleg" and not
> > "gss_accept_delegation"? The abbreviation here seems atypical.
>
> At the time it felt natural to me but I
At 2023-05-19 09:16:09 -0400, br...@momjian.us wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:07:26AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > > Why is the new PG 16 GUC called "gss_accept_deleg" and not
> > > "gss_accept_delegation"? The abbreviation here seems atypical.
> >
> > At the time it felt natural t
Abhijit Menon-Sen writes:
> I would also prefer a GUC named gss_accept_delegation, but the current
> name matches the libpq gssdeleg connection parameter and the PGSSDELEG
> environment variable. Maybe there's something to be said for keeping
> those three things alike?
+1 for spelling it out in
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:42:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen writes:
> > I would also prefer a GUC named gss_accept_delegation, but the current
> > name matches the libpq gssdeleg connection parameter and the PGSSDELEG
> > environment variable. Maybe there's something to be said f
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:42:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen writes:
>> I would also prefer a GUC named gss_accept_delegation, but the current
>> name matches the libpq gssdeleg connection parameter and the PGSSDELEG
>> environment variable. Maybe there's something to be said for
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 07:58:34AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 09:42:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Abhijit Menon-Sen writes:
> >> I would also prefer a GUC named gss_accept_delegation, but the current
> >> name matches the libpq gssdeleg connection parameter and the PG
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 09:33:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> With less then 48 hours to beta 1 packaging, I have made this change and
> adjusted internal variable to match.
The buildfarm and cfbot seem unhappy with 9c0a0e2. It looks like there are
a few remaining uses of gss_accept_deleg to r
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 08:17:57PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 09:33:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > With less then 48 hours to beta 1 packaging, I have made this change and
> > adjusted internal variable to match.
>
> The buildfarm and cfbot seem unhappy with 9c0a0
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 09:33:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> With less then 48 hours to beta 1 packaging, I have made this change and
>> adjusted internal variable to match.
> The buildfarm and cfbot seem unhappy with 9c0a0e2. It looks like there are
> a few remaini
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 11:21:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 09:33:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> With less then 48 hours to beta 1 packaging, I have made this change and
> >> adjusted internal variable to match.
>
> > The buildfarm and cfb
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 11:21:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> The buildfarm and cfbot seem unhappy with 9c0a0e2. It looks like there are
>> a few remaining uses of gss_accept_deleg to rename. I'm planning to commit
>> the attached patch shortly.
Done.
> I thought the pl
At 2023-05-20 23:21:57 -0400, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>
> Nathan Bossart writes:
> > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 09:33:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> With less then 48 hours to beta 1 packaging, I have made this change and
> >> adjusted internal variable to match.
>
> > The buildfarm and cfb
Abhijit Menon-Sen writes:
> At 2023-05-20 23:21:57 -0400, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>> I thought the plan was to also rename the libpq "gssdeleg" connection
>> parameter and so on? I can look into that tomorrow, if nobody beats
>> me to it.
> I was trying the change to see if it would be better
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen writes:
> > At 2023-05-20 23:21:57 -0400, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
> >> I thought the plan was to also rename the libpq "gssdeleg" connection
> >> parameter and so on? I can look into that tomorrow, if nobody beats
> >> me to
I noticed that the value that enables this feature at libpq client side
is 'enable'. However, for other Boolean settings like sslsni,
keepalives, requiressl, sslcompression, the value that enables feature
is '1' -- we use strings only for "enum" type of settings.
Also, it looks like connectOption
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I noticed that the value that enables this feature at libpq client side
> is 'enable'. However, for other Boolean settings like sslsni,
> keepalives, requiressl, sslcompression, the value that enables feature
> is '1' -- we use strings only for "enum" type of settings.
>
At 2023-05-22 09:42:44 -0400, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I noticed that the value that enables this feature at libpq client side
> > is 'enable'. However, for other Boolean settings like sslsni,
> > keepalives, requiressl, sslcompression, the value that enables featu
At 2023-05-22 09:42:44 -0400, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I noticed that the value that enables this feature at libpq client side
> > is 'enable'. However, for other Boolean settings like sslsni,
> > keepalives, requiressl, sslcompression, the value that enables featu
Abhijit Menon-Sen writes:
> Here's the diff, but the 0/1 values of settings like sslsni and
> sslcompression don't seem to be validated anywhere, unlike the string
> options in connectOptions2, so I didn't do anything for gssdelegation.
Thanks! I'll set to work on this. I assume we want to sque
Abhijit Menon-Sen writes:
> Here's the diff,
Pushed, thanks.
> but the 0/1 values of settings like sslsni and
> sslcompression don't seem to be validated anywhere, unlike the string
> options in connectOptions2, so I didn't do anything for gssdelegation.
Yeah. Perhaps it's worth adding code to
22 matches
Mail list logo
