Debian "postgresql-common" config check issue with pg10
Hello Peter,
Although this is really a small debian packaging issue, I cc to pgdev
because it illustrates unintended consequences of trivial changes.
Thanks (again!) to the great and up-to-date apt.postgresql.org repository,
I've tried to test the new scram-sha-256 feature. For that I looked in
"postgres.conf" and found:
#password_encryption = md5 # md5, scram-sha-256 or plain
Thus I naï¿œvely added:
password_encryption = scram-sha-256
After:
sh> pg_ctlcluster 10 main start
The result is:
Error: Invalid line 88 in /etc/postgresql/10/main/postgresql.conf:
ￜpassword_encryption = scram-sha-256ￜ
However, it works if I put 'scram-sha-256' (with simple quotes).
The underlying issue is that the '-' character breaks the config checker,
ISTM that the simple value regex in function "read_conf_file" in module
"PgCommon.pm" should be extended to allow more chars in unquoted strings,
to be consistent with lexer definitions in
"src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l".
I think that the issue appeared when 'scram' was changed to
'scram-sha-256' recently, as it is the first option enum with a dash,
all other options use '_'.
In passing, I would like to point out that the French quotation chevrons
(guillemets) used on the wrong sides and without spacing is probably eye
watering pain to any French reader, maybe like using ￜ in place of B in a
text. Also utf8 chars might not work properly under some terminal
encodings. Maybe using simple ascii ">>" and "<<" for the messages would
also be more portable?
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: Fabien COELHO 2017-05-08 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705081730030.3983@lancre>
Thus I na�vely added:
password_encryption = scram-sha-256
Hmm. Na�vely I would have assumed this would be missing quotes :)
The result is:
Error: Invalid line 88 in /etc/postgresql/10/main/postgresql.conf:
�password_encryption = scram-sha-256�However, it works if I put 'scram-sha-256' (with simple quotes).
The underlying issue is that the '-' character breaks the config checker,
ISTM that the simple value regex in function "read_conf_file" in module
"PgCommon.pm" should be extended to allow more chars in unquoted strings, to
be consistent with lexer definitions in "src/backend/utils/misc/guc-file.l".
I've relaxed the regexps there. It's still not exactly what the PG
parser accepts, but I think it's a superset now, so we should be safe.
In passing, I would like to point out that the French quotation chevrons
(guillemets) used on the wrong sides and without spacing is probably eye
watering pain to any French reader, maybe like using � in place of B in a
text. Also utf8 chars might not work properly under some terminal encodings.
Maybe using simple ascii ">>" and "<<" for the messages would also be more
portable?
I think �� are used the other way round in German vs. French, that's
probably why it was like that ;). Anyway, we are not quoting output in
most of the error() calls, so I've simply dropped the quotes.
Thanks for spotting and reporting!
Christoph
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Hallo Christoph,
password_encryption = scram-sha-256
Hmm. Na�vely I would have assumed this would be missing quotes :)
That what I thought at first, but the comments, documentation and code
were saying otherwise, so I dug into debian packaging instead.
I've relaxed the regexps there. It's still not exactly what the PG
parser accepts, but I think it's a superset now, so we should be safe.
Ok.
Thanks for spotting and reporting!
Thanks for the fix! Will it be released with the next pg10dev compilation?
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Hallo Christoph,
I've relaxed the regexps there. It's still not exactly what the PG
parser accepts, but I think it's a superset now, so we should be safe.
Will it be released with the next pg10dev compilation?
The answer is "yes", and it works as expected.
Vielen Dank again for the fix!
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers