On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Aleksander Alekseev <[email protected]> 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
