| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Yuefei Shi <shiyuefei1004(at)gmail(dot)com>, songjinzhou <tsinghualucky912(at)foxmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, liu xiaohui <liuxh(dot)zj(dot)cn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steven Niu <niushiji(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pasword expiration warning |
| Date: | 2026-01-29 21:56:25 |
| Message-ID: | aXvXiQkIdMKz-Or2@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 10:48:39PM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
> Le 29/01/2026 à 18:53, Nathan Bossart a écrit :
>> Having a variable for warning messages could come in handy later. For
>> example, we might add a warning about using MD5 passwords at some point.
>> In my draft patch for this [0], I put the warning after closing the
>> transaction, whereas this patch puts it just before. I'm not sure I had a
>> principled reason for doing so, but it's an interesting difference between
>> the two patches.
>
> Understood, I will rewrite the patch to use a int variable.
Sorry if my note was not clear, but I didn't mean to suggest rewriting
anything here. I thought the difference in placement for the warning
between your patch and mine was interesting, but I'm not sure there's
anything wrong that needs to be changed.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Borisov | 2026-01-29 22:07:20 | Non-committer reviews: is it helpful? |
| Previous Message | Ilia Evdokimov | 2026-01-29 21:54:15 | Re: [PATCH] ANALYZE: hash-accelerate MCV tracking for equality-only types |