Re: PAM patch...

On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> I think that the coding pattern shown in lines 746-760 is good:
>
> retval = pam_something(params);
>
> if (retval != PAM_SUCCESS)
> {
> generate error message;
> clean up state as needed;
> return STATUS_ERROR;
> }
>
> and that the right fix is to make each of the subsequent calls be in
> this same pattern, not to try to emulate their nonsensical style.

That's fair - there was some (weird?) reason it was done the other way in
the example code I based that section off of, but I don't remember
specifically why.

I'll make those changes, and resubmit.

--
Dominic J. Eidson
"Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/