Thank you Tom, Thank you Amit. Regards, Muhammad Asif Naeem
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> It's not a false alarm, unfortunately, because chkpass_in actually does > >> give different results from one call to the next. We could fix the > aspect > >> of that involving failing to zero out unused bytes (which it appears was > >> introduced by sloppy replacement of strncpy with strlcpy). But we can't > >> really do anything about the dependency on random(), because that's part > >> of the fundamental specification of the data type. It was a bad idea, > >> no doubt, to design the input function to do this; but we're stuck with > >> it now. > > > It seems to me that fix for this issue has already been committed > > (commit-id: 80986e85). So isn't it better to mark as Committed in > > CF app [1] or are you expecting anything more related to this issue? > > > [1]: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/144/ > > Ah, I didn't realize there was a CF entry for it, I think. Yeah, > I think we committed as much as we should of this, so I marked the > CF entry as committed. > > regards, tom lane >
