| From: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Pull general SASL framework out of SCRAM |
| Date: | 2021-07-09 23:31:48 |
| Message-ID: | 5a75d91c1e06cce43ba038ccaa8bfded5cb35df2.camel@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 16:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I agree that this looks like an improvement in terms of the
> expectations behind a SASL mechanism, so I have done the attached to
> strengthen a bit all those checks. However, I don't really see a
> point in back-patching any of that, as SCRAM satisfies with its
> implementation already all those conditions AFAIK.
Agreed.
> Thoughts?
LGTM, thanks!
> + * outputlen: The length (0 or higher) of the client response buffer,
> + * invalid if output is NULL.
nitpick: maybe "ignored" instead of "invalid"?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-09 23:43:02 | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-07-09 22:43:42 | Re: pg_dump new feature: exporting functions only. Bad or good idea ? |