Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It's not a false alarm, unfortunately, because chkpass_in actually does
>> give different results from one call to the next. We could fix the aspect
>> of that involving failing to zero out unused bytes (which it appears was
>> introduced by sloppy replacement of strncpy with strlcpy). But we can't
>> really do anything about the dependency on random(), because that's part
>> of the fundamental specification of the data type. It was a bad idea,
>> no doubt, to design the input function to do this; but we're stuck with
>> it now.
> It seems to me that fix for this issue has already been committed
> (commit-id: 80986e85). So isn't it better to mark as Committed in
> CF app [1] or are you expecting anything more related to this issue?
> [1]: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/144/
Ah, I didn't realize there was a CF entry for it, I think. Yeah,
I think we committed as much as we should of this, so I marked the
CF entry as committed.
regards, tom lane