From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, brown(at)fastmail(dot)com, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #13741: vacuumdb does not accept valid password |
Date: | 2015-11-12 21:51:22 |
Message-ID: | 21797.1447365082@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Thanks for the input. I decided to push what we had because it's less
> invasive in terms of API definition.
I dunno, this might be easier for the callers that don't want password
re-use, but it seems quite horrid for ones that do. The changes to
vacuumdb.c are, frankly, seriously ugly; and they require vacuumdb.c
to know a lot more than before about password handling.
Other notes are that the strdup() call should surely be pg_strdup(),
and the mix of free() and pg_free() is at best unsightly.
On the whole I don't think this was ready to push.
The place I was thinking we might end up was something like Fujii-san's
patch plus a new bool parameter "allow_password_reuse", which could be
passed as false in cases where the old behavior seems preferable.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-11-12 21:58:41 | Re: BUG #13741: vacuumdb does not accept valid password |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-11-12 21:26:27 | Re: BUG #13741: vacuumdb does not accept valid password |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-11-12 21:58:41 | Re: BUG #13741: vacuumdb does not accept valid password |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-11-12 21:26:27 | Re: BUG #13741: vacuumdb does not accept valid password |