Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Julian Markwort <julian(dot)markwort(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Valery Popov <v(dot)popov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol
Date: 2016-11-15 20:40:03
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZEMvrmqBRaLYs_mCDc+N5LyyTku=GtMovOsuRboVH3jQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> How do you plug in that with OpenSSL? Are you suggesting to use a set
> of undef definitions in the new header in the same way as pgcrypto is
> doing, which is rather ugly? Because that's what the deal is about in
> this patch.

Perhaps that justifies renaming them -- although I would think the
fact that they are static would prevent conflicts -- but why reorder
them and change variable names?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-11-15 20:55:55 pgsql: Account for catalog snapshot in PGXACT->xmin updates.
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2016-11-15 20:26:03 Re: SERIALIZABLE on standby servers