On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>> Suggested patch (first of many, I hope) renames `md5Salt` to more
>> general `pwsalt`.
>> Does it sound reasonable?
>
> I'm dubious. The main problem with supposing that port->md5Salt
> can serve other purposes is its fixed size. I think you're likely
> going to have to change that representation at some point (eg
> make it a separately-palloc'd field). My inclination would be to
> do the field renaming at the same time you change the representation,
> since that provides a convenient way to ensure you've caught every
> place that has to change.
SCRAM is going to use more than 4 bytes here. RFC5802 does not given
directly a length, the last set of patches has been using 10 bytes,
but at the end we are very likely to use more than that, and not 4 for
sure.
--
Michael