On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Ok, I committed your patch, with some minor changes.
Thanks for the commit.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 06/06/2017 06:09 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
To fix, I suppose we can do what you did for SASL in your patch, and move
the cleanup of conn->gctx from closePGconn to pgDropConnection. And I
presume we need to do the
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I bisected that; the culprit was commit 61bf96cab0, where I refactored the
> libpq authentication code in preparation for SCRAM. The logic around that
> free() was always a bit wonky, but the refactoring made it outright
On 06/05/2017 09:34 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due
for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
item ownership[1] and
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
> IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due
> for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
> item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:58:40PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:04:47AM +, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:52:23AM -0400, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Michael Paquier
> > > wrote:
> > > > On
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:04:47AM +, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:52:23AM -0400, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>
On 05/25/2017 06:36 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
Actually, I don't think that we are completely done here. Using the
patch of upthread to enforce a failure on SASLInitialResponse, I see
that connecting without
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:52:23AM -0400, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> On 05/24/2017 11:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>> I have
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Actually, I don't think that we are completely done here. Using the
> patch of upthread to enforce a failure on SASLInitialResponse, I see
> that connecting without SSL causes the following error:
> psql: FATAL:
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 05/24/2017 11:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I have noticed today that the server ignores completely the contents
>>> of
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05/24/2017 11:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I have noticed today that the server ignores completely the contents
>> of SASLInitialResponse. ... Attached is a patch to fix the problem.
>
> Fixed, thanks!
Thanks
On 05/24/2017 11:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
I have noticed today that the server ignores completely the contents
of SASLInitialResponse. ... Attached is a patch to fix the problem.
Fixed, thanks!
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
Hi all,
I have noticed today that the server ignores completely the contents
of SASLInitialResponse. For example with the patch attached called
scram-trick-server:
diff --git a/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-auth.c b/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-auth.c
index f4397afc64..8fe1c8edfb 100644
---
14 matches
Mail list logo