On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:07:55AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > An extensible API makes more sense than on/off (or one on/off call per > binding). Perhaps a way to validate the contents of the list is > required though? Or an assertion on the contents to catch errors > during testing.
Do you have something specific in mind? > Nitpicking: In src/backend/libpq/auth.c:CheckSCRAMAuth(), this comment > reads a bit strange: > > + * Get the list of channel binding types supported by this SSL > + * implementation to determine if server should publish -PLUS > + * mechanisms or not. > > Since auth.c isn’t tied to any SSL implementation, shouldn’t it be > “supported by the configured SSL implementation” or something along > those lines? Yes, your words sound better. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
