| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: additional contrib test suites |
| Date: | 2017-09-22 17:21:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20170922172109.pxcvwzgqsjxvnl72@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-09-18 09:54:52 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 9/16/17 08:10, David Steele wrote:
> >>> (5) drop contrib/chkpass altogether, on the grounds that it's too badly
> >>> designed, and too obsolete crypto-wise, to be useful or supportable.
> >> crypt() uses the 7 lowest characters, which makes for 7.2e16 values,
> >> so I would be fine with (5), then (4) as the test suite is not
> >> portable.
> > I'd prefer 5, but can go with 4.
> >
> > I get that users need to store their own passwords, but we have support
> > for SHA1 via the crypto module which seems by far the better choice.
>
> I'm also tempted to just remove it. It uses bad/outdated security
> practices and it's also not ideal as an example module. Any objections?
Uhm. I'm not objecting, but I doubt people really noticed your question
in a thread about additional contrib test suites.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-09-22 17:55:12 | Re: pgbench regression test failure |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-22 17:02:25 | Re: pgbench regression test failure |