Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Дата
Msg-id 89cbbbf1-4c92-48bd-7d37-e3a31ec09af5@2ndquadrant.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Список pgsql-hackers
On 1/4/18 15:41, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/28/17 02:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:27:40AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 03:28:09PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/17 03:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>>> Second thoughts on 0002 as there is actually no need to move around
>>>>> errorMessage if the PGconn* pointer is saved in the SCRAM status data
>>>>> as both are linked. The attached simplifies the logic even more.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That all looks pretty reasonable.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review. Don't you think that the the refactoring
>>> simplifications should be done first though? This would result in
>>> producing the patch set in reverse order. I'll be fine to produce them
>>> if need be.
>>
>> Well, here is a patch set doing the reverse operation: refactoring does
>> first in 0001 and support for tls-server-end-point is in 0002. Hope this
>> helps.
> 
> committed

Some hosts don't seem to have X509_get_signature_nid().  Looking into
that ...

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Condition variable live lock
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256