Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Actually coding up a patch for that was just a bunch of simple >> search/replace ops. Attached is one that appears to work fine for me. > >> Was there any reason why this wasn't done before, or just nobody had the >> time? If there was a reason, please let me know what it was :-) > > AFAIR nobody got round to it because it hadn't seemed important.
Ok. I actually managed to provoke a GSSAPI error that got cut off at 256 characters in testing. Which is kind of amazing in itself, but... >> (Question about backpatch remains) > > I'd vote against backpatching. The appropriate fix for back branches > is probably just to reduce the strncpy and snprintf arguments to > INITIAL_EXPBUFFER_SIZE, ie, make the code do what that header comment > says it should do. Right. See other mail as well. > Style point: in the places where you've chosen to pass the whole PGconn, > you should remove any separate arguments that are actually just PGconn > fields; eg for pg_krb5_sendauth it looks like sock and servicename are > now redundant. Otherwise there are risks of programmer confusion, and > maybe even wrong code generation, due to aliasing. > > It would be more consistent to pass PGconn around to all of these > functions instead of trying to have them have just partial views of it, > but I dunno if you want to engage in purely cosmetic changes. I'll go ahead and do that now, while I'm whacking the code around. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
