Subject: Re: Naming of gss_accept_deleg

From: Stephen Frost <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 09:07:26 -0400

Greetings,

* Bruce Momjian ([email-masked]) wrote:
> Why is the new PG 16 GUC called "gss_accept_deleg" and not
> "gss_accept_delegation"?  The abbreviation here seems atypical.

At the time it felt natural to me but I don't feel strongly about it,
happy to change it if folks would prefer it spelled out.

Thanks,

Stephen

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 09:16:09 -0400

> happy to change it if folks would prefer it spelled out.

Yes, please do spell it out, thanks.  The fact "deleg" looks similar to
"debug" also doesn't help.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.

---

From: Abhijit Menon-Sen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 19:05:19 +0530

> "debug" also doesn't help.

Note that GSS-API itself calls it the "DELEG" flag:

    if (conn->gcred != GSS_C_NO_CREDENTIAL)
            gss_flags |= GSS_C_DELEG_FLAG;

I would also prefer a GUC named gss_accept_delegation, but the current
name matches the libpq gssdeleg connection parameter and the PGSSDELEG
environment variable. Maybe there's something to be said for keeping
those three things alike?

-- Abhijit

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 09:42:00 -0400

> those three things alike?

+1 for spelling it out in all user-visible names.  I do not think
that that GSS-API C symbol is a good precedent to follow.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 09:44:36 -0400

> that that GSS-API C symbol is a good precedent to follow.

Once nice bonus of the release notes is that it allows us to see the new
API in one place to check for consistency.