From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
 Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>, brown@fastmail.com,
 "pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #13741: vacuumdb does not accept valid password
In-reply-to: <20151112212627.GR614468@alvherre.pgsql>
References: 
 <CAJrrPGe6+q7V8mssFV5nHXpisZqTLOwd=434hF3q1tyDjoGmew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqQTPujBV9a1bZMNGQ1VAUTAYfZTNnM6Yb6c2TZHva_MvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrrPGeXuav-OYjJYKwSaLt+aOU+emH4a5XZS3XfMHNfanUmnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJrrPGetAZVhE=0YJY5idTYtSt2o1LCkkC9aQaw81kJg2RyWuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151104021618.GP6104@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAB7nPqSazOE_bB7koqHOY2gYM6vPs9e3D158ZCjxyJ61p1Ra8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqTq5PfQbMMCqJ4KRM8Q1ppOgVu4WziuEzm=3TNUN5wUoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwHx0BvxTDpo2xXS--gEJFQjjrTP4BZY8wRzUfPYakzEgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151112170303.GN614468@alvherre.pgsql> <15139.1447357263@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20151112212627.GR614468@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
 message dated "Thu, 12 Nov 2015 18:26:27 -0300"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 16:51:22 -0500
Message-ID: <21797.1447365082@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Thanks for the input.  I decided to push what we had because it's less
> invasive in terms of API definition.

I dunno, this might be easier for the callers that don't want password
re-use, but it seems quite horrid for ones that do.  The changes to
vacuumdb.c are, frankly, seriously ugly; and they require vacuumdb.c
to know a lot more than before about password handling.

Other notes are that the strdup() call should surely be pg_strdup(),
and the mix of free() and pg_free() is at best unsightly.

On the whole I don't think this was ready to push.

The place I was thinking we might end up was something like Fujii-san's
patch plus a new bool parameter "allow_password_reuse", which could be
passed as false in cases where the old behavior seems preferable.

			regards, tom lane


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