On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > On 03/01/2014 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> In the case of Unix systems, there is a *far* simpler and more portable >> solution technique, which is to tell the test postmaster to put its socket >> in some non-world-accessible directory created by the test scaffolding. >> > > > +1 - I'm all for KISS. > > > >> Of course that doesn't work for Windows, which is why we looked at the >> random-password solution. But I wonder whether we shouldn't use the >> nonstandard-socket-location approach everywhere else, and only use random >> passwords on Windows. That would greatly reduce the number of cases to >> worry about for portability of the password-generation code; and perhaps >> we could also push the crypto issue into reliance on some Windows-supplied >> functionality (though I'm just speculating about that part). >> > > > See for example <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ > aa379942%28v=vs.85%29.aspx> > For a one-off password used locally only, we could also consider just using a guid, and generate it using http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa379205(v=vs.85).aspx. Obviously windows only though - do we have *any* Unix platforms that can't do unix sockets? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
