| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joe Van Dyk <joe(at)tanga(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ltree::text not immutable? |
| Date: | 2014-10-27 15:32:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20141027153259.GV1791@alvin.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Not entirely sure what to do about this. It seems like for the purposes
> of contrib/chkpass, it's a good thing that chkpass_in() won't reuse the
> same salt. Weak as a 12-bit salt might be nowadays, it's still better
> than no salt. Nonetheless, this behavior is breaking assumptions made
> in places like array_in and record_in.
>
> For the moment I'm tempted to mark chkpass_in as stable (with a comment
> explaining that it isn't really) just so we can put in the error check
> in CREATE TYPE. But I wonder if anyone has a better idea.
Can we have a separate function that accepts unencrypted passwords, and
change chkpass_in to only accept encrypted ones? Similar to
to_tsquery() et al.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-27 17:19:42 | Re: BUG #10680: LDAP bind password leaks to log on failed authentication |
| Previous Message | djlu126 | 2014-10-27 06:29:43 | BUG #11804: The delete rule problem |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-27 15:40:31 | Re: superuser() shortcuts |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2014-10-27 15:20:42 | Re: cost_index() |