Thread: [PATCH] Refactoring: rename md5Salt to pwsalt
Hello. Since there are plans/efforts to introduce additional authorization methods in nearest feature I suggest to refactor the code so it wouldn't mention md5 when it possible. `md5Salt` for instance could be not only "md5 salt" but also "sha2 salt", etc - depending on what authorization method was chosen. Suggested patch (first of many, I hope) renames `md5Salt` to more general `pwsalt`. Does it sound reasonable? -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
Attachment
Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> Suggested patch (first of many, I hope) renames `md5Salt` to more
> general `pwsalt`.
> Does it sound reasonable?
I'm dubious. The main problem with supposing that port->md5Salt
can serve other purposes is its fixed size. I think you're likely
going to have to change that representation at some point (eg
make it a separately-palloc'd field). My inclination would be to
do the field renaming at the same time you change the representation,
since that provides a convenient way to ensure you've caught every
place that has to change.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> writes: >> Suggested patch (first of many, I hope) renames `md5Salt` to more >> general `pwsalt`. >> Does it sound reasonable? > > I'm dubious. The main problem with supposing that port->md5Salt > can serve other purposes is its fixed size. I think you're likely > going to have to change that representation at some point (eg > make it a separately-palloc'd field). My inclination would be to > do the field renaming at the same time you change the representation, > since that provides a convenient way to ensure you've caught every > place that has to change. SCRAM is going to use more than 4 bytes here. RFC5802 does not given directly a length, the last set of patches has been using 10 bytes, but at the end we are very likely to use more than that, and not 4 for sure. -- Michael