Re: Refactoring HMAC in the core code

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Subject: Re: Refactoring HMAC in the core code
Date: 2020-12-19 00:35:57
Message-ID: X91K7UGI4o+Dnvql@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 10:48:00AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Great. See my questions in the key manager thread about whether I
> should use the init/update/final API or just keep the one-line version.
> As far as when to commit this, I think the quiet time is actually better
> because if you break something, it is less of a disruption while you fix
> it.

Please note that on a related thread that I have begun yesterday,
Heikki has suggested some changes in the way we handle the opaque data
used by each cryptohash implementation.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6ebe7f1f-bf37-2688-2ac1-a081d278367c@iki.fi

As the design used on this thread for HMAC is similar to what I did
for cryptohashes, it would be good to conclude first on the interface
there, and then come back here so as a consistent design is used. As
a whole, I don't think that there is any need to rush for this stuff.
I would rather wait more and make sure that we agree on an interface
people are happy enough with.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2020-12-19 00:42:02 Re: Refactoring HMAC in the core code
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2020-12-18 23:56:07 Re: terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_alloc'