> > However, that doesn't change that some people would like us to
> support
> > GSSAPI, and there may be some benefit (additional applications,
> better
> > network authentication, etc.) for doing so. If we can get
> additional
> > programmers to code the support (i.e. Sun, JPL) I don't see any
> reason
> > not to support the *additional* authentication methods.
>
> Well, as I said already, a lot depends on the size of the patch.
> As a reductio ad absurdum, if they drop 100K lines of code on us,
> it *will* get rejected, no matter how cool it is.
Oh, absolutely.
> The current Kerberos support seems to require about 50 lines in
> configure.in and circa 200 lines of C code in each of the backend
> and libpq. Plus a dependency on an outside library that happens to
> be readily available and compatibly licensed.
I would expect, without looking at the details of the API, GSSAPI to be
about the same amount of code if not less.
> What amount of code are we talking about adding here, and what
> dependencies exactly? What portability and license hazards will be
> added?
The Kerberos5 libraries that we rely on today provide GSSAPI. So it
would work with the same external library. Now, it could *also* work
with other libraries in some cases (for example, the Win32 SSPI
libraries), but with the same libraries it should work fine.
//Magnus
