Re: Please review: Authentication after fork
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Please review: Authentication after fork |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.30.0106162010500.6413-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Please review: Authentication after fork (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Please review: Authentication after fork
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane writes: > > * Is it okay to ignore the count field in the password packet and read > > the actual password like a null-terminated string? That was only there > > for the postmaster way of handling incomplete packets, right? > > Seems like we ought to keep the packet-parsing rules the same, to avoid > possible introduction of client compatibility problems. Hmm, the current code cuts off the password at 99 (+/-1) characters. I think there's a TODO item to get rid of those limits, and sending anything else would be a (rather stupid) protocol violation anyway, so I think I will keep this part. > Um, shouldn't collection of the startup packet be done after the fork? To handle query cancel requests we'd need to take a peek in the postmaster, unless we want to start up a new backend for that. Also, I'm not sure how the SSL negotiation would work. It's doable, might be worthwhile, but should be a separate consideration. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: