From: Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@sourcepole.ch>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Make SSPI documentation clearer
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 16:58:46 +0200
Message-ID: <d2b32aa1-72d7-42aa-81c0-651aa23d72c3@sourcepole.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZSW5T2RcfHHJE93-@momjian.us>
References: <167846222574.1803490.15815104179136215862@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
<ZA5wJQFOcULuIwwn@tamriel.snowman.net>
<ZRS2Dpp4mX0plOaN@momjian.us>
<ZRWF3/hQPyUZb8om@momjian.us>
<ZSW5T2RcfHHJE93-@momjian.us>
On 10.10.23 22:51, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 07:09:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 08:36:53PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>>>> When the server is on a non-Windows platform then the server must use GSSAPI
>>>>> if it wants to authenticate the client either via Kerberos or via Active
>>>>> Directory. A client on a Windows platform that connects to a non-Windows
>>>>> Postgresql server can either use SSPI (strongly encouraged) or GSS (much
>>>>> more difficult to set up) if it wants to authenticate via Kerberos or Active
>>>>> Directory. A client from a non-Windows platform must use GSS if it wants to
>>>>> authenticate via Kerberos or Active Directory."
>>>>
>>>> Rather than work in negative, I feel like it might make more sense to
>>>> work in positives? That is, perhaps this instead:
>>>>
>>>> On Windows platforms, SSPI is the default and most commonly used
>>>> mechanism. Note that an SSPI client can authenticate to a server which
>>>> is using either SSPI or GSSAPI, and a GSSAPI client can authenticate to
>>>> a server which is using either SSPI or GSSAPI. Generally speaking,
>>>> clients and servers on Windows are recommended to use SSPI while clients
>>>> and servers on Unix (non-Windows) platforms use GSSAPI.
>>>
>>> I developed the attached patch.
>>
>> My first attempt was too terse, so here is a more detailed version,
>> attached.
>
> Patch applied back to PG 11.
Nice! Thanks a lot Bruce! And:
Stephen wrote:
>
>> Tomas wrote:
>>
>> - anybody here that has the guts, time and willingness to take the
>> supposed improvement and apply put it into the git repo?
>
> This isn't helpful and frankly is detrimental to getting this change
> included. We strive strongly to have a positive tone and focus on
> technical excellence.
Thanks a lot Stephen for this comment! I hope it will cause a more
important change on my side than my minuscule effort to improve the
docu. And sorry I didn't follow up - life piled up and I never came back
to this.
Many thanks Stephen, really, very appreciated and thanks Bruce for
picking up the ball!!!
*t
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tpo2@sourcepole.ch, bruce@momjian.us, sfrost@snowman.net, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Make SSPI documentation clearer
In-Reply-To: <d2b32aa1-72d7-42aa-81c0-651aa23d72c3@sourcepole.ch>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox