On 05/05/2017 03:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
+ This option is obsolete but still accepted for backwards + compatibility. Isn't that incorrect English? It seems to me that this be non-plural, as "for backward compatibility".
I changed most cases to "backward compatibility", except the one in create_role.sgml, because there were other instances of "backwards compatibility" on that page, and I didn't want this to stick out.
The comment at the top of check_password() in passwordcheck.c does not mention scram, you may want to update that.
Reworded the comment, to not list all the possible values.
+ /* + * We never store passwords in plaintext, so this shouldn't + * happen. + */ break; An error here is overthinking?
It's not shown in the diff's context, but an error is returned just after the switch statement. I considered leaving out the "case PASSWORD_TYPE_PLAINTEXT" altogether, but then you might get compiler warnings complaining that that enum value is not handled. I also considered putting a an explicit "default:" there, which returns an error, but then you'd again miss out on compiler warnings, if you add a new password hash type and forget to add a case here to handle it.
-- consistency of password entries -SET password_encryption = 'plain'; -CREATE ROLE regress_passwd1 PASSWORD 'role_pwd1'; SET password_encryption = 'md5'; Nit: this is skipping directly to role number 2.
Renumbered the test roles. Committed with those little cleanups. Thanks for the review! - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers