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

Re: Patch to include PAM support...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Dominic J(dot) Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch to include PAM support...
Date: 2001-06-12 18:23:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> It is has the same problems as IDENT, and it doesn't add any new
> problems, and it meets people's needs, why not add it?

Because (a) it greatly increases the scope of the vulnerability,
and (b) it adds more code that will need to be rewritten to fix the
problem.  I want to fix the blocking problem first, then solicit a
PAM patch that fits into the rewritten postmaster.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Darren JohnsonDate: 2001-06-12 18:29:20
Subject: RE: AW: Postgres Replication
Previous:From: Limin LiuDate: 2001-06-12 18:18:54
Subject: Big5 contains '\'

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-06-12 18:31:58
Subject: Re: Patch to include PAM support...
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-06-12 18:16:14
Subject: Re: Patch to include PAM support...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group