|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: additional contrib test suites|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2017-09-18 09:54:52 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 9/16/17 08:10, David Steele wrote:
> >>> (5) drop contrib/chkpass altogether, on the grounds that it's too badly
> >>> designed, and too obsolete crypto-wise, to be useful or supportable.
> >> crypt() uses the 7 lowest characters, which makes for 7.2e16 values,
> >> so I would be fine with (5), then (4) as the test suite is not
> >> portable.
> > I'd prefer 5, but can go with 4.
> > I get that users need to store their own passwords, but we have support
> > for SHA1 via the crypto module which seems by far the better choice.
> I'm also tempted to just remove it. It uses bad/outdated security
> practices and it's also not ideal as an example module. Any objections?
Uhm. I'm not objecting, but I doubt people really noticed your question
in a thread about additional contrib test suites.
|Next Message||Fabien COELHO||2017-09-22 17:55:12||Re: pgbench regression test failure|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2017-09-22 17:02:25||Re: pgbench regression test failure|