Re: Replace current implementations in crypt() and gen_salt() to OpenSSL

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, "Koshi Shibagaki (Fujitsu)" <shibagaki(dot)koshi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Replace current implementations in crypt() and gen_salt() to OpenSSL
Date: 2024-11-19 23:12:34
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYYctDtmgbfW7XW9yA2PZd67SafF3UawJh6O8=V4WUyVA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:30 PM Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> Any other opinions out there?

Why should we accept your patch (which adds a legacy_crypto_enabled
GUC) instead of adopting the approach originally proposed (i.e. use
the OpenSSL version of the functions)? It seems to me that the two
proposals accomplish the same thing, except that one of them also adds
a GUC.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Dilger 2024-11-19 23:26:09 Re: Index AM API cleanup
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-11-19 23:05:15 Re: sunsetting md5 password support