| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com" <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DETAIL for wrong scram password |
| Date: | 2021-04-08 10:59:02 |
| Message-ID: | YG7h9i+g1XRauEU7@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:49:00AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yes, you are right here. I missed the parts before
> mock_scram_secret() gets called and there are comments in the whole
> area. Hmm, at the end of the day, I think that would just have
> verify_client_proof() fill in logdetail when the client proof does not
> match, and use a wording different than what's proposed upthread to
> outline that this is a client proof mismatch.
Seeing no updates, this has been marked as RwF.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-04-08 11:11:21 | Re: SQL-standard function body |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2021-04-08 10:54:47 | Re: Binary search in ScalarArrayOpExpr for OR'd constant arrays |