Re: [BUGS] ltree::text not immutable?
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] ltree::text not immutable? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20141027153259.GV1791@alvin.alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] ltree::text not immutable? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] ltree::text not immutable?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Not entirely sure what to do about this. It seems like for the purposes > of contrib/chkpass, it's a good thing that chkpass_in() won't reuse the > same salt. Weak as a 12-bit salt might be nowadays, it's still better > than no salt. Nonetheless, this behavior is breaking assumptions made > in places like array_in and record_in. > > For the moment I'm tempted to mark chkpass_in as stable (with a comment > explaining that it isn't really) just so we can put in the error check > in CREATE TYPE. But I wonder if anyone has a better idea. Can we have a separate function that accepts unencrypted passwords, and change chkpass_in to only accept encrypted ones? Similar to to_tsquery() et al. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: