On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> [long review]
Note as well that I have switched the patch as "waiting on author" for
the time being. Missing symbols on Windows as well as crashes are
pointing out that this should be returned with feedback for
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> A new version of my GSSAPI encryption patchset is available, both in
>> this email and on my github:
>>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> A new version of my GSSAPI encryption patchset is available, both in
> this email and on my github:
> https://github.com/frozencemetery/postgres/tree/feature/gssencrypt9
>
> This version is intended to address David's
Hello friends,
A new version of my GSSAPI encryption patchset is available, both in
this email and on my github:
https://github.com/frozencemetery/postgres/tree/feature/gssencrypt9
This version is intended to address David's review suggestions:
- The only code change (not counting SGML and
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:10 AM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> On 2015-07-02 14:22:13 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>> [Andres' comments]
>>
>> Here are some comments on top of what Andres has mentioned.
>>
>> --- a/configure.in
>> +++ b/configure.in
>> @@ -636,6 +636,7 @@
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I quickly read through the patch, trying to understand what exactly is
>> happening here. To me the way the patch is split doesn't make much sense
>> - I
Andres Freund writes:
> Hi,
Hi, thanks for the review; I really appreciate your time in going
through this. I have questions about some of your comments, so I'll
wait a bit before sending a v3. (By the way, there is a v2 of this I've
already posted, though you seem to have
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I quickly read through the patch, trying to understand what exactly is
> happening here. To me the way the patch is split doesn't make much sense
> - I don't mind incremental patches, but right now the steps don't
Hi,
I quickly read through the patch, trying to understand what exactly is
happening here. To me the way the patch is split doesn't make much sense
- I don't mind incremental patches, but right now the steps don't
individually make sense.
On 2015-07-02 14:22:13 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
Going through the docs, the overall approach taken by the patch looks neat,
and the default values as designed for both the client and the server are
good things to do. Now actually
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Robbie Harwood rharw...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello -hackers,
As previously discussed on this list, I have coded up GSSAPI encryption
support. If it is easier for anyone, this code is also available for
viewing on my github:
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Robbie Harwood rharw...@redhat.com wrote:
There are 8 commits in this series; I have tried to err on the side of
creating too much separation rather than too little. A patch for each
is attached. This is v1
Robbie,
* Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote:
As previously discussed on this list, I have coded up GSSAPI encryption
support. If it is easier for anyone, this code is also available for
viewing on my github:
Hello -hackers,
As previously discussed on this list, I have coded up GSSAPI encryption
support. If it is easier for anyone, this code is also available for
viewing on my github:
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/compare/master...frozencemetery:feature/gssencrypt
Fallback support is present
14 matches
Mail list logo