[PATCH] Refactoring: rename md5Salt to pwsalt
Hello.
Since there are plans/efforts to introduce additional authorization
methods in nearest feature I suggest to refactor the code so it
wouldn't mention md5 when it possible. `md5Salt` for instance could be
not only "md5 salt" but also "sha2 salt", etc - depending on what
authorization method was chosen.
Suggested patch (first of many, I hope) renames `md5Salt` to more
general `pwsalt`.
Does it sound reasonable?
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
Attachments:
pwsalt-v1.patchtext/x-patchDownload+12-12
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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers