Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Perhaps that justifies renaming them -- although I would think the
>>> fact that they are static would prevent conflicts -- but why reorder
>>> them and change variable names?
>>
>> Yeah... Perhaps I should not have done that, which was just for
>> consistency's sake, and even if the new reordering makes more sense
>> actually...
>
> Yeah, I don't see a point to that.

OK, by doing so here is what I have. The patch generated by
format-patch, as well as diffs generated by git diff -M are reduced
and the patch gets half in size. They could be reduced more by adding
at the top of sha2.c a couple of defined to map the old SHAXXX_YYY
variables with their PG_ equivalents, but that does not seem worth it
to me, and diffs are listed line by line.
--
Michael