On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> The organization of these patches makes sense to me.
>> On 10/20/16 1:14 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> - 0001, moving all the SHA2 functions to src/common/ and introducing a
>>> PG-like interface. No actual changes here.
>> That's probably alright, although the patch contains a lot more changes
>> than I would imagine for a simple file move. I'll still have to review
>> that in detail.
> Even with git diff -M, reviewing 0001 is very difficult. It does
> things that are considerably in excess of what is needed to move these
> files from point A to point B, such as:
> - Renaming static functions to have a "pg" prefix.
> - Changing the order of the functions in the file.
> - Renaming an argument called "context" to "cxt".
> I think that is a bad plan. I think we should insist that 0001
> content itself with a minimal move of the files changing no more than
> is absolutely necessary. If refactoring is needed, those changes can
> be submitted separately, which will be much easier to review. My
> preliminary judgement is that most of this change is pointless and
> should be reverted.
How do you plug in that with OpenSSL? Are you suggesting to use a set
of undef definitions in the new header in the same way as pgcrypto is
doing, which is rather ugly? Because that's what the deal is about in
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: