On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:26:47AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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".
Good point. But the line that corresponds to what is currently called "gss"
is "host" :)
//Magnus