Re: PAM patch...

On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> I think that the coding pattern shown in lines 746-760 is good:
>
>     retval = pam_something(params);
>
>     if (retval != PAM_SUCCESS)
>     {
>         generate error message;
>         clean up state as needed;
>         return STATUS_ERROR;
>     }
>
> and that the right fix is to make each of the subsequent calls be in
> this same pattern, not to try to emulate their nonsensical style.

That's fair - there was some (weird?) reason it was done the other way in
the example code I based that section off of, but I don't remember
specifically why.

I'll make those changes, and resubmit.


--
Dominic J. Eidson
                                        "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.the-infinite.org/              http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/