Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQYim-=PBHa19p04wSBbgGT=+ts1qWeQj2FG9HSmBX78Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Responses Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> On 2/23/16 2:17 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> As a continuation of the thread firstly dedicated to SCRAM:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/55192AFE.6080106@iki.fi
>> Here is a new thread aimed at gathering all the ideas of this previous
>> thread and aimed at clarifying a bit what has been discussed until now
>> regarding password protocols, verifiers, and SCRAM itself.
>
>
> It looks like this patch set is a bit out of date.
>
> When applying 0004:
>
> $ git apply
> ../other/0004-Remove-password-verifiers-for-unsupported-protocols-.patch
> error: patch failed: src/bin/pg_upgrade/pg_upgrade.c:262
> error: src/bin/pg_upgrade/pg_upgrade.c: patch does not apply
>
> Then I tried to build with just 0001-0003:
>
> cd /postgres/src/include/catalog && '/usr/bin/perl' ./duplicate_oids
> 3318
> 3319
> 3320
> 3321
> 3322
> make[3]: *** [postgres.bki] Error 1
>
> Could you provide an updated set of patches for review?  Meanwhile I am
> marking this as "waiting for author".

Sure. I'll provide them shortly with all the comments addressed. Up to
now I just had a couple of comments about docs and whitespaces, so I
didn't really bother sending a new set, but this meritates a rebase.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types
Next
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check