Re: pgcrypto: PGP armor headers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marko Tiikkaja
Subject Re: pgcrypto: PGP armor headers
Date
Msg-id 54103582.5030203@joh.to
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgcrypto: PGP armor headers  (Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>)
Responses Re: pgcrypto: PGP armor headers  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 9/9/14 11:01 AM, I wrote:
> On 9/9/14 10:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> So I think this (and the corresponding dearmor code too) should be
>> refactored to use a StringInfo that gets enlarged as needed, instead of
>> hoping to guess the size correctly beforehand. To ease review, might
>> make sense to do that as a separate patch over current sources, and the
>> main patch on top of that.
>
> Yeah, I thought the same thing while writing that code.  Thanks, I'll do
> it that way.

Attached is what I have right now.  I started working on the decoding
part, but it has this piece of code:

    /* decode crc */
    if (b64_decode(p + 1, 4, buf) != 3)
        goto out;

which makes the approach a bit uglier.  If I did this the same way, I
would have to create and destroy a StringInfo just for this operation,
which seems ugly.  So I wonder if I shouldn't try and instead keep the
code closer to what it is in HEAD right now; I could call
enlargeStringInfo() first, then hand out a pointer to b64_encode (or
b64_decode()) and finally increment StringInfoData.len by how much was
actually written.  That would keep the code changes a lot smaller, too.

Is either of these approaches anywhere near what you had in mind?

I'm also not sure why we need to keep a copy of the base64
encoding/decoding logic instead of exporting it in utils/adt/encode.c.


.marko

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Add shutdown_at_recovery_target option to recovery.conf
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: pgcrypto: PGP armor headers