On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> The organization of these patches makes sense to me. >> >> On 10/20/16 1:14 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> - 0001, moving all the SHA2 functions to src/common/ and introducing a >>> PG-like interface. No actual changes here. >> >> That's probably alright, although the patch contains a lot more changes >> than I would imagine for a simple file move. I'll still have to review >> that in detail. > > Even with git diff -M, reviewing 0001 is very difficult. It does > things that are considerably in excess of what is needed to move these > files from point A to point B, such as: > > - Renaming static functions to have a "pg" prefix. > - Changing the order of the functions in the file. > - Renaming an argument called "context" to "cxt". > > I think that is a bad plan. I think we should insist that 0001 > content itself with a minimal move of the files changing no more than > is absolutely necessary. If refactoring is needed, those changes can > be submitted separately, which will be much easier to review. My > preliminary judgement is that most of this change is pointless and > should be reverted.
How do you plug in that with OpenSSL? Are you suggesting to use a set of undef definitions in the new header in the same way as pgcrypto is doing, which is rather ugly? Because that's what the deal is about in this patch. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers