On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:08:30AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> writes:
> >>> Also note that changing the signature check_password_hook_type would
> >>> break any external modules that use the hook. Removing
> >>> PASSWORD_TYPE_PLAINTEXT will do that too, because any password hook
> >>> function would use that constant (see e.g. contrib/passwordcheck). If we
> >>> were to change the signature, I'd actually like to simplify it by
> >>> removing the password_type parameter altogether. The hook function can
> >>> call get_password_type() on the password itself to get the same
> >>> information. But it's not worth changing the API and breaking external
> >>> modules for that.
> >
> > Ahah. I just had the same thought before reading this message.
> And attached is a patch to do that. I am all for this one to get a
> more simple interface in place.

[Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Heikki,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.


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

Reply via email to