It will, if a patch is supplied. Anything significant that is mentioned
in the CVS logs gets shown in the release notes.
---
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> > > > Anyone want to argue that we should keep the v0 protocol suppo
> > > Anyone want to argue that we should keep the v0 protocol support any
> > > longer?
> >
> > Nope, exactly the same thought crossed my mind while I was reading
> > through the code...
>
> Feel free to rip it out.
Should probably be mentioned in the release notes.
-
Neil Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > More generally, though, I was thinking that the appropriate answer
> > at this point is to rip out support for version-0 authentication
> > altogether. I can't believe anyone will be trying to connect to a
> > 7.3 or beyond server with
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> More generally, though, I was thinking that the appropriate answer
>> at this point is to rip out support for version-0 authentication
>> altogether.
> Further, has this code actually been tested within recent memor
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> More generally, though, I was thinking that the appropriate answer
> at this point is to rip out support for version-0 authentication
> altogether. I can't believe anyone will be trying to connect to a
> 7.3 or beyond server with 6.2 client libraries (v0 wen
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch fixes the so-called DoS possibility when processing the
> password packet in recv_and_check_passwordv0().
If len is signed, then something like "len < 1" needs to be in there
as well.
More generally, though, I was thinking that the appropriate
