Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-08-27 23:17:36
Subject: Re: Proposed GUC Variable
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2002-08-27 22:52:57
Subject: Re: C vs. C++ contributions

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-08-27 23:17:36
Subject: Re: Proposed GUC Variable
Previous:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2002-08-27 22:39:48
Subject: Re: Proposed GUC Variable

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group