>> Tom, assuming we fix this, are you fine with the concept?
>Mostly. Should the --with-krb-srvnam configure parameter go away?
>Or is it now seen as establishing an installation default? (Either
>way implies some documentation work.)
The original way kept it in there to establish an installation default.
I think that is a good idea (yes, it certainly has to be documented) to
keep it as such, and just allow it to be overridden (the same way you
can use --with-pgport to change the default port, but you can still
override it in postgresql.conf).