Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:51:04PM -0700, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> > At the risk of diluting my message: I still think it's a mistake to
> > call it gss instead of something like gss-noprot. I believe this
> > will cause misunderstandings in the future when we get the security
> > layer of gssapi implemented.
>
> Well, I don't agree with this, but if others want it changed, it can
> certainly be changed. And it can only be changed *now*, and not once we
> release.
>
> But we have "host" and "hostssl", not "hostnossl" and "host". So the way we
> are donig it now is IMO more consistent with what we have in other parts of pg.
Actually we have "hostssl", "hostnossl" and "host".
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.