From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length |
Date: | 2002-08-28 03:00:58 |
Message-ID: | 200208280300.g7S30xZ03910@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > More generally, though, I was thinking that the appropriate answer
> > at this point is to rip out support for version-0 authentication
> > altogether. I can't believe anyone will be trying to connect to a
> > 7.3 or beyond server with 6.2 client libraries (v0 went away in 6.3
> > as best I can tell from the CVS logs).
>
> Further, has this code actually been tested within recent memory? If
> not, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's suffered some
> bitrot...
>
> > Anyone want to argue that we should keep the v0 protocol support any
> > longer?
>
> Nope, exactly the same thought crossed my mind while I was reading
> through the code...
Feel free to rip it out.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-28 03:01:38 | Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-28 02:45:24 | Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-28 03:01:38 | Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length |
Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-08-28 01:59:40 | Re: Proposed GUC Variable |