Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 10/15/2016 04:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>
>>> * Now that we don't call random() in postmaster anymore, is there any
>>> point
>>> in calling srandom() there (i.e. where the above incorrect comment was)?
>>> Should we remove it? random() might be used by pre-loaded extensions,
>>> though. (Hopefully not for cryptographic purposes.)
>>
>>
>> That's the business of the maintainers such modules, so my heart is
>> telling me to rip it off, but my mind tells me that there is no point
>> in making them unhappy either if they rely on it. I'd trust my mind on
>> this one, other opinions are welcome.
>
>
> I kept it for now. Doesn't do any harm either, even if it's unnecessary.
>
>>> * Should we backport this? Sorry if we discussed that already, but I
>>> don't
>>> remember.
>>
>>
>> I think that we discussed quickly the point at last PGCon during the
>> SCRAM-committee-unofficial meeting, and that we talked about doing
>> that only for HEAD.
>
>
> Ok, committed to HEAD.

You removed the part of pgcrypto in charge of randomness, nice move. I
was wondering about how to do with the perfc and the unix_std at some
point, and ripping them off as you did is fine for me.
-- 
Michael