On 11/30/17 00:36, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 11/22/17 21:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Yes, agreed. This patch looks good to me. In fe-auth-scram.c, it would
>>> be also nice to add a comment to keep in sync the logics in
>>> build_client_first_message() and build_client_final_message() which
>>> assign the cbind flag value.
>>
>> Could you clarify what comment you would like to have added or changed?
>
> Sure. Here is with the attached patch what I have in mind. The way
> cbind-flag is assigned in the client-first message should be kept
> in-sync with the way the client-final message builds the binding data
> in c=. It could be possible to add more sanity-checks based on
> assertions by keeping track of the cbind-flag assigned in the
> client-first message as your upthread patch is doing in the backend
> code, but I see a simple comment as a sufficient reminder.
Committed with that comment, thanks.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services