Re: Naming of gss_accept_deleg - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Abhijit Menon-Sen
Subject Re: Naming of gss_accept_deleg
Date
Msg-id ZGuERm/B2UCuajzz@toroid.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Naming of gss_accept_deleg  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Naming of gss_accept_deleg
Re: Naming of gss_accept_deleg
List pgsql-hackers
At 2023-05-22 09:42:44 -0400, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > I noticed that the value that enables this feature at libpq client side
> > is 'enable'.  However, for other Boolean settings like sslsni,
> > keepalives, requiressl, sslcompression, the value that enables feature
> > is '1' -- we use strings only for "enum" type of settings.
> 
> > Also, it looks like connectOptions2() doesn't validate the string value.
> 
> Hmm, it certainly seems like this ought to accept exactly the
> same inputs as other libpq boolean settings.  I can take a look
> unless somebody else is already on it.

Here's the diff, but the 0/1 values of settings like sslsni and
sslcompression don't seem to be validated anywhere, unlike the string
options in connectOptions2, so I didn't do anything for gssdelegation.

(I've never run the Kerberos tests before, but I changed one
"gssdelegation=disable" to "gssdelegation=1" and got a test failure, so
they're probably working as expected.)

-- Abhijit

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Tristan Partin"
Date:
Subject: Make pgbench exit on SIGINT more reliably
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Naming of gss_accept_deleg