Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 04/07/2017 05:30 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I am really wondering if this should not reflect the real range
>> reported by the RFC. I understand that you have grouped things to save
>> a couple of bytes, but that would protect from any updates of the
>> codepoints within those ranges (unlikely to happen I agree).
>
> It just means that there will be some more work required to apply the
> changes to the current lists. I constructed the lists manually to begin
> with, copy-pasting the lists from the RFC, and moving and merging entries by
> hand. I wouldn't mind doing that by hand again, if the lists change. But as
> you said, it seems unlikely that they would change any time soon.

Yeah, I don't mind either. That's simple enough to change should that happen.

>> You may want to add a .gitignore in src/common/unicode for norm_test
>> and norm_test_table.h.
>
> Added, and pushed, with some more comment fixes.

Nice. There are still a couple of important items pending for SCRAM,
so I would think that it is better to not do the refactoring now (but
rework it in PG11), but polish a bit more the documentation. Your
thoughts on that?
-- 
Michael