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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
