Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZDCPvofV3t/2mPMz@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw (David Christensen <david@pgguru.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings, * David Christensen (david@pgguru.net) wrote: > Reviewed v8; largely looking good, though I notice this hunk, which may > arguably be a bug fix, but doesn't appear to be relevant to this specific > patch, so could probably be debated independently (and if a bug, should > probably be backpatched): > > diff --git a/contrib/postgres_fdw/option.c b/contrib/postgres_fdw/option.c > index 4229d2048c..11d41979c6 100644 > --- a/contrib/postgres_fdw/option.c > +++ b/contrib/postgres_fdw/option.c > @@ -288,6 +288,9 @@ InitPgFdwOptions(void) > {"sslcert", UserMappingRelationId, true}, > {"sslkey", UserMappingRelationId, true}, > > + /* gssencmode is also libpq option, same to above. */ > + {"gssencmode", UserMappingRelationId, true}, > + > {NULL, InvalidOid, false} > }; Hmm, yeah, hard to say if that makes sense at a user-mapping level or not. Agreed that we could have an independent discussion regarding that and if it should be back-patched, so removed it from this patch. > That said, should "gssdeleg" be exposed as a user mapping? (This shows up > in postgresql_fdw; not sure if there are other places that would be > relevant, like in dblink somewhere as well, just a thought.) Ah, yeah, that certainly makes sense to have as optional for a user mapping. dblink doesn't have the distinction between server-level options and user mapping options (as it doesn't have user mappings at all really) so it doesn't have something similar. Updated patch attached. Thanks! Stephen
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: