Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> A question from that then, for others, is it Ok to add a field to the
>> PGconn structure during RC? :-) It's only in libpq-int.h, but? Comments?
>
> Changing PGconn internals doesn't bother me, but ...
>
> IIUC this is a pre-existing bug/limitation in an extremely seldom-used
> feature that we don't have any very good way to test. So I'm not really
> excited about trying to fix it in RC at all. The chances of breaking
> something seem much higher than the usefulness of the fix would warrant.
>
> I'd suggest holding the matter until 8.5 development opens.
I think we'll see this feature used a lot more now, since we support
client certificate authentication. I bet that's the reason why Lars is
using it now, but wasn't using it before. Correct, Lars?
That would be the argument for doing it now. We previously supported
engines for client certificates, but using client certificates at all
wasn't very useful in pre-8.4, and that's why it wasn't used almost at
all. While I don't expect a huge number of users of it in 8.4, I think
it is a *much* more useful feature now, and thus will be used a lot more.
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/