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?
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.