| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GSSAPI, SSPI - include_realm default |
| Date: | 2014-12-10 09:53:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20141210095315.GA13011@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 05:40:35PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I thought the idea was to backpatch documentation saying "it's a good idea
> > to change this value to x because of y". Not actually referring to the
> > upcoming change directly. And I still think that part is a good idea, as it
> > helps people avoid potential security pitfalls.
>
> I agree with this but I don't really see why we wouldn't say "hey, this
> is going to change in 9.5." Peter's argument sounds like he'd rather we
> not make any changes to the existing documentation, and I don't agree
> with that, and if we're making changes then, imv, we might as well
> comment that the default is changed in 9.5.
I agree with Peter --- it is unwise to reference a future released
feature in a backbranch doc patch. Updating the backbranch docs to add
a recommendation is fine.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-12-10 09:58:21 | Re: Small TRUNCATE glitch |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-12-10 08:36:20 | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |