| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julian Markwort <julian(dot)markwort(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Valery Popov <v(dot)popov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |
| Date: | 2016-10-17 09:18:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQpek5pUUinmZNMr+n9+vgaUqaxZJ9zWRoMKM8e1uHRHw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> On 10/15/2016 04:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>
>>> * Now that we don't call random() in postmaster anymore, is there any
>>> point
>>> in calling srandom() there (i.e. where the above incorrect comment was)?
>>> Should we remove it? random() might be used by pre-loaded extensions,
>>> though. (Hopefully not for cryptographic purposes.)
>>
>>
>> That's the business of the maintainers such modules, so my heart is
>> telling me to rip it off, but my mind tells me that there is no point
>> in making them unhappy either if they rely on it. I'd trust my mind on
>> this one, other opinions are welcome.
>
>
> I kept it for now. Doesn't do any harm either, even if it's unnecessary.
>
>>> * Should we backport this? Sorry if we discussed that already, but I
>>> don't
>>> remember.
>>
>>
>> I think that we discussed quickly the point at last PGCon during the
>> SCRAM-committee-unofficial meeting, and that we talked about doing
>> that only for HEAD.
>
>
> Ok, committed to HEAD.
You removed the part of pgcrypto in charge of randomness, nice move. I
was wondering about how to do with the perfc and the unix_std at some
point, and ripping them off as you did is fine for me.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2016-10-17 09:27:17 | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-10-17 08:56:14 | Re: Gather Merge |