From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length |
Date: | 2002-08-27 23:00:25 |
Message-ID: | 87r8gjzz3q.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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...
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-27 23:17:36 | Re: Proposed GUC Variable |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-08-27 22:52:57 | Re: C vs. C++ contributions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-27 23:17:36 | Re: Proposed GUC Variable |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-08-27 22:39:48 | Re: Proposed GUC Variable |