ï
I found that function
gen_salt() in contrib/pgcrypto had bug on win32.
I patched contrib/pgcrypto/random.c file.
--
$ diff random.orig.c random.c 42a43>
#include 87a89,90>
srandom(time(NULL));>
89c92<
*dst++ =
random();--->
Korea PostgreSQL Users Group said:
> I found that function gen_salt() in contrib/pgcrypto had bug on win32.
>
> I patched contrib/pgcrypto/random.c file.
>
> --
>
> $ diff random.orig.c random.c
> 42a43
>> #include
> 87a89,90
>> srandom(time(NULL));
>>
> 89c92
> < *
ï
I found that function
gen_salt() in contrib/pgcrypto had bug on win32.
I patched contrib/pgcrypto/random.c file.
pgcrypto_random.patch
Description: Binary data
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free
Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group wrote:
I found that function gen_salt() in contrib/pgcrypto had bug on win32.
I patched contrib/pgcrypto/random.c file.
What is the purpose of this addition?
+ srandom(time(NULL));
+
Is resetting the seed on each call a good idea?
cheers
andrew
"Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SSBmb3VuZCB0aGF0IGZ1bmN0aW9uIGdlbl9zYWx0KCkgaW4gY29udHJpYi9w
> Z2NyeXB0byBoYWQgYnVnIG9uIHdpbjMyLg0KDQpJIHBhdGNoZWQgY29udHJp
> Yi9wZ2NyeXB0by9yYW5kb20uYyBmaWxlLg0KDQo=
Unencoded text would be nicer to reply to ...
But anyway, why are yo
David Kamholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *** plperl.c.orig Sat Dec 4 02:09:24 2004
> --- plperl.c Sat Dec 4 03:41:33 2004
> ***
> *** 57,62
> --- 57,63
> #include "utils/lsyscache.h"
> #include "utils/syscache.h"
> #include "utils/typcache.h"
> + #include "mb/p
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:51:28AM +0900, Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group wrote:
> I found that function gen_salt() in contrib/pgcrypto had bug on win32.
>
> I patched contrib/pgcrypto/random.c file.
Could you describe the bug bit more?
As for srandom, src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c does it
a
Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for srandom, src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c does it
> already, and doing it more will make matters only worse.
Yes. I think we had some discussion about that already, and concluded
it was a bad idea to insert ad-hoc srandom calls.
> I would not o
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:36:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would not object to just sticking '& 255' there,
>
> The patch actually says '% 255' which is a whole different animal;
> it still requires explaining though.
Yeah, I was hinting that '& 255'
