On 9/29/14 3:02 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Thanks! I found the pgp_extract_armor_headers()'s signature quite weird,
so I simplified that by making it always return arrays of keys and
values. The callers is now responsible for returning all the keys
(pgp_armor_header_keys) or finding the single key (pgp_armor_header). I
also partially rewrote the implementation of
pgp_extract_armor_headers(), making it more readable I hope.

OK.  Looks good to me.

If an armor header line ends in CR+LF, pgp_armor_header() returned the
CR as part of the value, with your patch. I don't think that's right,
the line ending should be considered part of the armoring, so I changed

Nice catch.  You are correct.

Is there any real life examples or tools out there to generate armors
with headers with duplicate keys? RFC 4880 says:

    Note that some transport methods are sensitive to line length.  While
    there is a limit of 76 characters for the Radix-64 data (Section
    6.3), there is no limit to the length of Armor Headers.  Care should
    be taken that the Armor Headers are short enough to survive
    transport.  One way to do this is to repeat an Armor Header key
    multiple times with different values for each so that no one line is
    overly long.

Does anyone do that in practice? Is there any precedence for
concatenating the values in other tools that read armor headers?

Maybe I just suck at $SEARCH_ENGINE, but extracting armor headers programmatically doesn't seem to be very popular. I could only find one example, which returned the last instance of the key. But that seemed to be more an accident than anything else; it wasn't documented and the source code didn't say anything about it. I also think that's the worst behaviour. If we can't agree on concatenation, I'd rather see an error.

I wonder if it would make sense to have pgp_armor_header_keys() return
both the keys and values. That would make it easier to use, and it might
then make sense for it to not remove the duplicates or concatenate
values, but just them as is. The caller could then deal with the
duplicates any way he wants. We could keep the function for extracting
the value for a single key, with the concatenating behavior, for

I'd also suggest renaming it to pgp_armor_headers() in that case. But otherwise it seems like a reasonable plan to me. Want me to do that change or are you going to?


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to