Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Date
Msg-id 688.997913214@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Also, I didn't use palloc because the same C code is used in the backend
> and libpq.

"#define palloc(x) malloc(x)" has been our traditional solution to that.

What I'm more concerned about here is the blithe assumption that a
64-bit-int datatype is available.  I'm going through major pushups right
now to ensure that int8 sequences don't break machines without 64-bit
ints, and I'd like to see at least some minimal attention paid to the
issue in this code.

BTW, a protocol version bump for this is a horrid idea.  That will
create lots of compatibility problems for people, whether they use
the new auth mode or not.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords