On 06/09/2013 09:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Even aside from that, the proposed change seems like a bad idea because
it introduces an unnecessary call of GetCurrentTimestamp() in the common
case where there's no valuntil limit. On some platforms that call is
pretty slow.
And that would explain wh
Stephen Frost writes:
> Regardless, setting vuntil to some magic value that really means "it's
> actually NULL", which is what you'd need to do in order to get rid of
> that explicit check for null, doesn't strike me as a good idea. When a
> value is null, we shouldn't be looking at the data at a
* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> Well I was more referring to the default is:
>
> check if null, if true return ok
> check if valuntil < today, if true return error
> else return ok
>
> To me we don't need the null check. However, when I tested it,
> without the null check you
On 06/08/2013 08:47 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
JD,
* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote:
In my quest to understand how all the logging etc works with
authentication I came across the area of crypt.c that checks for
valid_until but it seems like it has an extraneous check.
If I am wr
JD,
* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> In my quest to understand how all the logging etc works with
> authentication I came across the area of crypt.c that checks for
> valid_until but it seems like it has an extraneous check.
>
> If I am wrong I apologize for the noise but would
Hello,
In my quest to understand how all the logging etc works with
authentication I came across the area of crypt.c that checks for
valid_until but it seems like it has an extraneous check.
If I am wrong I apologize for the noise but wouldn't mind an explanation.
index f01d904..8d809b2 100
