On 11/30/17 00:36, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 11/22/17 21:08, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Yes, agreed. This patch looks good to me. In fe-auth-scram.c, it would >>> be also nice to add a comment to keep in sync the logics in >>> build_client_first_message() and build_client_final_message() which >>> assign the cbind flag value. >> >> Could you clarify what comment you would like to have added or changed? > > Sure. Here is with the attached patch what I have in mind. The way > cbind-flag is assigned in the client-first message should be kept > in-sync with the way the client-final message builds the binding data > in c=. It could be possible to add more sanity-checks based on > assertions by keeping track of the cbind-flag assigned in the > client-first message as your upthread patch is doing in the backend > code, but I see a simple comment as a sufficient reminder.
Committed with that comment, thanks. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
