"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> I'd like to vote in favor of this patch:
> http://candle.pha.pa.us/mhonarc/patches2/msg00025.html.
> I know Tom said he didn't really like it, but I'd ask you to reconsider
> that.
The patch is unacceptable as is because (a) it adds a libpq
configuration parameter that acts differently from all the other ones
(not supported in connect strings for instance) and (b) it adds no
documentation for that variable, nor for the server-side variable it
adds. Doing the libpq parameter in a more thorough fashion is just a
matter of programming-by-example (grep for CONNECT_TIMEOUT for an
example) but I for one don't know enough about Kerberos to document
the thing.
regards, tom lane
