| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: use of the term "verifier" with SCRAM |
| Date: | 2019-10-12 19:48:37 |
| Message-ID: | e7b54a17-462e-4308-e2a0-1edb788e0067@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-10-10 10:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:08:37AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Here is my proposed patch to adjust this.
>
> Looks fine to me reading through. I think that you are right to not
> change the descriptions in build_server_final_message(), as that's
> described similarly in RFC 5802.
committed
> By renaming scram_build_verifier()
> to scram_build_secret() you are going to break one of my in-house
> extensions. I am using it to register for a user SCRAM veri^D^D^D^D
> secrets with custom iteration and salt length :)
OK, that should be easy to work around with an #ifdef or two.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-10-12 19:56:03 | Re: fairywren failures |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-10-12 11:44:52 | Re: maintenance_work_mem used by Vacuum |