Re: GSSAPI, SSPI - include_realm default

On Tue, Dec  9, 2014 at 05:40:35PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I thought the idea was to backpatch documentation saying "it's a good idea
> > to change this value to x because of y". Not actually referring to the
> > upcoming change directly. And I still think that part is a good idea, as it
> > helps people avoid potential security pitfalls.
> 
> I agree with this but I don't really see why we wouldn't say "hey, this
> is going to change in 9.5."  Peter's argument sounds like he'd rather we
> not make any changes to the existing documentation, and I don't agree
> with that, and if we're making changes then, imv, we might as well
> comment that the default is changed in 9.5.

I agree with Peter --- it is unwise to reference a future released
feature in a backbranch doc patch.  Updating the backbranch docs to add
a recommendation is fine.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +