On 05/05/2017 03:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
+ This option is obsolete but still accepted for backwards
+ compatibility.
Isn't that incorrect English? It seems to me that this be non-plural,
as "for backward compatibility".
I changed most cases to "backward compatibility", except the one in
create_role.sgml, because there were other instances of "backwards
compatibility" on that page, and I didn't want this to stick out.
The comment at the top of check_password() in passwordcheck.c does not
mention scram, you may want to update that.
Reworded the comment, to not list all the possible values.
+ /*
+ * We never store passwords in plaintext, so
this shouldn't
+ * happen.
+ */
break;
An error here is overthinking?
It's not shown in the diff's context, but an error is returned just
after the switch statement. I considered leaving out the "case
PASSWORD_TYPE_PLAINTEXT" altogether, but then you might get compiler
warnings complaining that that enum value is not handled. I also
considered putting a an explicit "default:" there, which returns an
error, but then you'd again miss out on compiler warnings, if you add a
new password hash type and forget to add a case here to handle it.
-- consistency of password entries
-SET password_encryption = 'plain';
-CREATE ROLE regress_passwd1 PASSWORD 'role_pwd1';
SET password_encryption = 'md5';
Nit: this is skipping directly to role number 2.
Renumbered the test roles.
Committed with those little cleanups. Thanks for the review!
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
