Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aljsv-0005FC-SC for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:12:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aljsv-0005Q0-Ao for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:12:09 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aljrZ-0003uA-Cv for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:10:45 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1aljrW-00080z-Ct for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:10:44 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u2VLAdkk008266; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:10:39 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robbie Harwood cc: Alvaro Herrera , Michael Paquier , PostgreSQL mailing lists Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] GSSAPI encryption support In-reply-to: References: <20160331194556.GA134261@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Robbie Harwood message dated "Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:54:57 -0400" Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:10:39 -0400 Message-ID: <8265.1459458639@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robbie Harwood writes: >>> + { >>> + {"gss_encrypt", PGC_USERSET, CONN_AUTH_SECURITY, >>> + gettext_noop("Require encryption for all GSSAPI connections."), >>> + NULL, >>> + GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE | GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE >>> + }, >>> + &gss_encrypt, false, check_gss_encrypt, assign_gss_encrypt, NULL >>> + }, >> Why is this marked NOT_IN_SAMPLE? > Well, because it's not something that's supposed to be set in the file > (and indeed, you can't set it there, if I understand > GUC_DISALLOW_IN_FILE). It's used only as a connection parameter, and I > use its presence / absence for the client and server to negotiate GSSAPI > encryption support. If that's what it is, it seems fairly broken to have it connected up to a GUC variable. Especially one that's USERSET; some people will wonder why frobbing it with SET does nothing, and others will bitch that they think it should be superuser-only or some such. I'd keep it localized to the connection logic, myself. There's already logic in ProcessStartupPacket for connection options that aren't GUC variables, so I'd suggest adding another case there instead of pretending this is a settable GUC variable. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers