> "Oliver Elphick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This change has only been made in the unstable release; so I don't mind
> > if peer and ident are folded together. Anyone running unstable knows
> > the world may turn upside down beneath him!
>
> > So if you have a patch to do that, go ahead.
>
Tom Lane writes:
> Well, we need to talk about that. I like your idea of making ident auth
> "just work" on local connections better than Oliver's approach of
> inventing a separate auth-type keyword.
This is exactly what I would not like to see. "ident" defines a specific
protocol, with an id
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Yes! That was it the Solaris patch I remember, SCM_CREDENTIALS.
>
> Can you provide a pointer to this patch? I just grepped Solaris includes
> in vain for SCM_CRED.
>
> The keyword "SCM_CREDENTIALS" is actually used by Linux, whereas FreeBSD
> u
> Ah, now I understand: those references I saw mention the existence of
> the underlying SCM_CREDENTIALS (or whatever it's called) message type,
> not the SO_PEERCRED getsockopt facility.
Yes! That was it the Solaris patch I remember, SCM_CREDENTIALS.
> I agree that it's not worth pursuing at t
> BTW, while digging through my mail archives I discovered that Oliver
> *did* already extract his "peer" auth patch and submit it as a proposed
> patch --- see the pghackers archives for 3-May-2001. At the time I
> think we were concerned about portability issues, but as long as it's
> appropria
> BTW, while digging through my mail archives I discovered that Oliver
> *did* already extract his "peer" auth patch and submit it as a proposed
> patch --- see the pghackers archives for 3-May-2001. At the time I
> think we were concerned about portability issues, but as long as it's
> appropria
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> ... But Oliver may feel that he has to
> >> continue to support the "peer" keyword on Debian anyway, for backwards
> >> compatibility. If so, do we want different ways of doing the same thing
> >> on different distros, or should we just follow the
> [ redirected to pgsql-hackers for comment ]
>
> Helge Bahmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> There is a more complete version of this capability in the Debian patch
> >> set. I think we've been waiting for Oliver to pull it out and submit it
> >> as a
