From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Removal of plaintext password type references |
Date: | 2017-05-20 02:33:07 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob65QxUDJd4f0Bjep_DFjDWFDk5n26JyPDHnH-Rw2ZesA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Anyone else want to vote? So far I count 3-1 in favor of making this change.
>
> Actually, on looking at the final form of the patch, it's hard to think
> that it's not just useless API churn. The one existing hook user would
> have to turn around and call get_password_type() anyway, so it's not
> an improvement for that use-case. What's the argument that most other
> use-cases wouldn't need to do the same?
OK, make that 2-2 in favor of the change.
I guess it does seem likely that most users of the hook would need to
do the same, but it seems confusing to pass the same function both x
and f(x), so my vote is to not do that. But I'm not disposed to spend
a lot of energy arguing about it, so if other people feel differently,
that's cool. I just want to reach a decision and either do this or
drop it from the open items list.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-05-20 02:40:34 | Re: bumping HASH_VERSION to 3 |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-05-20 02:18:28 | Re: [POC] Faster processing at Gather node |