From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
cc: Tim Watts <tim.j.watts@kcl.ac.uk>,
	"pgsql-admin@postgresql.org" <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Postgresql 8.4 GSSAPI auth with fallback to password prompting?
In-reply-to: <20130325132557.GM4361@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <514AFB73.6050300@kcl.ac.uk>
	<5c910ac4f9fa4dc78f1ba6747182b671@DBXPRD0310HT003.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<51502949.6000903@kcl.ac.uk>
	<20130325132557.GM4361@tamriel.snowman.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
	message dated "Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:25:57 -0400"
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:31:30 -0400
Message-ID: <12593.1364221890@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tim Watts (tim.j.watts@kcl.ac.uk) wrote:
>> I would have to respectfully take another point of view: that that
>> particular judgement is probably better placed with the sysadmin
>> rather than a blanket decision by the devs.

> It's not a blanket decision by any means- the current situation is that
> such an option doesn't exist.  It's not "it exists, but we disabled it
> because we felt like it."

> Were someone to write the code to support such an option, it's entirely
> possible it'd get committed (though likely with strong caveats about its
> use in the documentation).

I'm not sure it would.  Allowing a fallback would amount to a protocol
change, meaning that old clients might fail in strange ways.  You'd
need a lot stronger case than has been made here to justify dealing
with that.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin