Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length
Date: 2002-08-28 03:00:58
Message-ID: 200208280300.g7S30xZ03910@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Neil Conway wrote:
> 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...

Feel free to rip it out.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-28 03:01:38 Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-28 02:45:24 Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-28 03:01:38 Re: fix for palloc() of user-supplied length
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2002-08-28 01:59:40 Re: Proposed GUC Variable