Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PAM patch...

From: "Dominic J(dot) Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,<pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PAM patch...
Date: 2002-02-22 05:04:44
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
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

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Dominic J. EidsonDate: 2002-02-22 05:19:11
Subject: Re: PAM patch...
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-02-22 05:00:51
Subject: Re: PAM patch...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group