| 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: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |
| Date: | 2001-08-15 22:06:54 |
| Message-ID: | 688.997913214@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Also, I didn't use palloc because the same C code is used in the backend
> and libpq.
"#define palloc(x) malloc(x)" has been our traditional solution to that.
What I'm more concerned about here is the blithe assumption that a
64-bit-int datatype is available. I'm going through major pushups right
now to ensure that int8 sequences don't break machines without 64-bit
ints, and I'd like to see at least some minimal attention paid to the
issue in this code.
BTW, a protocol version bump for this is a horrid idea. That will
create lots of compatibility problems for people, whether they use
the new auth mode or not.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-15 22:17:51 | Re: Fix for fetchone() and fetchmany() in Python interface |
| Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2001-08-15 22:01:58 | Re: Fix for fetchone() and fetchmany() in Python interface |