From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Server ignores contents of SASLInitialResponse |
Date: | 2017-06-03 04:58:40 |
Message-ID: | 20170603045840.GA1509786@rfd.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:04:47AM +0000, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:52:23AM -0400, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Michael Paquier
> > <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> > >> On 05/24/2017 11:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > >>> I have noticed today that the server ignores completely the contents
> > >>> of SASLInitialResponse. ... Attached is a patch to fix the problem.
> > >>
> > >> Fixed, thanks!
> > >
> > > Thanks for the commit.
> >
> > Actually, I don't think that we are completely done here. Using the
> > patch of upthread to enforce a failure on SASLInitialResponse, I see
> > that connecting without SSL causes the following error:
> > psql: FATAL: password authentication failed for user "mpaquier"
> > But connecting with SSL returns that:
> > psql: duplicate SASL authentication request
> >
> > I have not looked at that in details yet, but it seems to me that we
> > should not take pg_SASL_init() twice in the scram authentication code
> > path in libpq for a single attempt.
>
> [Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
>
> The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Heikki,
> since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
> this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
> toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2017-06-03 05:04:26 | Re: Alter subscription..SET - NOTICE message is coming for table which is already removed |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-03 03:39:15 | Re: walsender & parallelism |