Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Date
Msg-id 9ac07df0-784a-cb03-a9e1-1454eca16b3b@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
List pgsql-hackers
On 12/28/17 02:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:27:40AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 03:28:09PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 12/22/17 03:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>> Second thoughts on 0002 as there is actually no need to move around
>>>> errorMessage if the PGconn* pointer is saved in the SCRAM status data
>>>> as both are linked. The attached simplifies the logic even more.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That all looks pretty reasonable.
>>
>> Thanks for the review. Don't you think that the the refactoring
>> simplifications should be done first though? This would result in
>> producing the patch set in reverse order. I'll be fine to produce them
>> if need be.
> 
> Well, here is a patch set doing the reverse operation: refactoring does
> first in 0001 and support for tls-server-end-point is in 0002. Hope this
> helps.

committed

I reorganized the be_tls_get_certificate_hash() and
pgtls_get_peer_certificate_hash() functions a bit to not have most of
the code in a big if statement.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: GSoC 2018
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins.