As discussed in [1], we're taking this opportunity to return some
patchsets that don't appear to be getting enough reviewer interest.
This is not a rejection, since we don't necessarily think there's
anything unacceptable about the entry, but it differs from a standard
"Returned with Feedback" in
On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 at 23:22, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> Please add your patch to the current open commitfest.
>
Done. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/35/3338/
Thanks for the guidance.
Daniel
On 10/2/21 5:48 AM, Daniel Fone wrote:
I don’t get these compiler warnings and I can’t find any settings to use that
might generate them. I’m compiling on macOS 11.6 configured with
`--enable-cassert --enable-depend --enable-debug CFLAGS=-O0`
I’ve optimistically updated the patch to hopefully
On 02.10.2021 06:48, Daniel Fone wrote:
> I don’t get these compiler warnings and I can’t find any settings to use that
> might generate them. I’m compiling on macOS 11.6 configured with
> `--enable-cassert --enable-depend --enable-debug CFLAGS=-O0`
>
Hi, Daniel!
I don't get them from clang on
Hi Andreas,
> On 1/10/2021, at 12:17 AM, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
>
> On 9/28/21 11:58 PM, Daniel Fone wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2021, at 2:33 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> I don't see why not, the best first patches are those scratching an itch.
>>> If
>>> you feel up for it then give it a go,
On 9/28/21 11:58 PM, Daniel Fone wrote:
On 29/09/2021, at 2:33 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
I don't see why not, the best first patches are those scratching an itch. If
you feel up for it then give it a go, I - and the rest of pgsql-hackers - can
help if you need to bounce ideas.
I’m glad
> On 29/09/2021, at 2:33 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> On 28 Sep 2021, at 05:15, Daniel Fone wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/09/2021, at 12:09 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>>
>>> Upgrading our crypt_blowfish.c to the upstream 1.3 version would be the
>>> correct
>>> fix IMO, but since we have a
> On 28 Sep 2021, at 05:15, Daniel Fone wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
>> On 26/09/2021, at 12:09 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>
>> But 2b and 2a hashes aren't equal, although very similar. 2a should have the
>> many-buggy to one-correct collision safety and 2b hashes
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the feedback.
> On 26/09/2021, at 12:09 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
> But 2b and 2a hashes aren't equal, although very similar. 2a should have the
> many-buggy to one-correct collision safety and 2b hashes shouldn't. The fact
> that your hashes work isn't conclusive
> On 24 Sep 2021, at 04:12, Daniel Fone wrote:
> At the moment, pgcrypto’s `crypt` doesn’t recognise this prefix. However,
> simply `replace`ing the prefix with $2a$ allows crypt to validate the hashes.
> This patch simply adds recognition for the prefix and treats the hash
> identically to
Hello,
I've recently been working with a database containing bcrypt hashes generated
by a 3rd-party which use the $2b$ prefix. This prefix was introduced in 2014
and has since been recognised by a number of bcrypt implementations.
[1][2][3][4]
At the moment, pgcrypto’s `crypt` doesn’t
11 matches
Mail list logo
