Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Robbie Harwood (rharwood@redhat.com) wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If it was on the table it might have been better to keep hostgss
>>>> and change the authentication method to gssauth or something, but
>>>> that ship sailed *years* ago.
>>>
>>> Uh, did we consider keeping hostgss and changing the auth part at
>>> the end to "gssauth"?
>>
>> I think that was implicitly rejected because we'd have to keep the
>> capability to configure "gss" there else break compatibility.
>
> Right, if we changed the name of the auth method then everyone who is
> using the "gss" auth method would have to update their pg_hba.conf
> files... That would be very ugly. Also, it wasn't implicitly
> rejected, it was discussed up-thread (see the comments between Magnus
> and I, specifically, quoted above- "that ship sailed *years* ago") and
> explicitly rejected.
Apologies, you're right of course. I intended to say why *I* had
rejected it but got bit by the passive voice.
Thanks,
--Robbie
