SEO

#1 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 07:23 AM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martijn van Oosterhout [mailto:kleptog@svana.org]
> Sent: 19 December 2005 09:38
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Peter Eisentraut;
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Andreas Pflug
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password
> encryption
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 09:16:19AM -0000, Dave Page wrote:
> > > > > Something like
> > > > > char *pg_gen_encrypted_passwd(const char *passwd, const
> > > > > char *user)
> > > > > with malloc'd result (or NULL on failure) seems more
> future-proof.
>
> > > If programs are really worried about it, they should lookup the
> > > function dynamically rather than statically...
> >
> > For the sake of a simple name change?
>
> The function as stated above doesn't exist yet, so we're adding a new
> function, not changing the name of one. The function that started the
> thread is not even exported by libpq so changing that shouldn't affect
> anybody. Besides, this whole discussion is moot until someone writes
> such a function.

You missunderstand me - we were asked to start using the function in
third party apps and I pointed out that it wasn't exported so we
couldn't. Tom suggested exporting an API friendly version.

As for the name, I meant the DLL name, not the function name.

> As for Windows DLL hell, I don't know a lot about that, but if that's
> such a problem, why didn't the original creators of the windows port
> stick the version number in there from the start. On UNIX, libpq is
> half versioned (the library is, but not the symbols) so I would have
> thought copying that idea would have been obvious.

Because we simply didn't think of it at the time, and it's something
that has irked me ever since.

Regards, Dave.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

#2 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 07:23 AM

On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 10:32:03AM -0000, Dave Page wrote:
>
> > As for Windows DLL hell, I don't know a lot about that, but if that's
> > such a problem, why didn't the original creators of the windows port
> > stick the version number in there from the start. On UNIX, libpq is
> > half versioned (the library is, but not the symbols) so I would have
> > thought copying that idea would have been obvious.
>
> Because we simply didn't think of it at the time, and it's something
> that has irked me ever since.

In that case, I agree. I've always thought a lot of problem in windows
could be solved if they systematically added a version number to every
library (like in UNIX).

Are there any reasons why we shouldn't change the libname with every
release like for UNIX? I can't think of any, but you never know...

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFDpo5sIB7bNG8LQkwRAuM7AKCQOKX8JrLsuePneGGPhY GRj6GHLwCeL6my
0PeGcPsFtm3y65UkrIyUZDk=
=qb0/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

#3 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 07:24 AM

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> Are there any reasons why we shouldn't change the libname with every
> release like for UNIX? I can't think of any, but you never know...

Surely that cure is far worse than the disease. You'd be trading a
might-break risk (app using new function will fail if used with old
library) for a guaranteed-to-break risk (*every* app fails if used
with *any* library version other than what it was built against).

The Unix version of the idea is considerably more flexible than
what would happen on Windows.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

#4 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 07:24 AM

Tom Lane wrote:

>Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
>
>
>>Are there any reasons why we shouldn't change the libname with every
>>release like for UNIX? I can't think of any, but you never know...
>>
>>
>
>Surely that cure is far worse than the disease. You'd be trading a
>might-break risk (app using new function will fail if used with old
>library) for a guaranteed-to-break risk (*every* app fails if used
>with *any* library version other than what it was built against).
>
>The Unix version of the idea is considerably more flexible than
>what would happen on Windows.
>
>
Different from Unix distros, win32 apps will always bring all their
required libraries with them, so it's totally under control of the
developer/packager. There's no such thing as prerequisite packages for
win32 installs, new lib names will *not* break other apps when installed
because older ones stay untouched.

Regards,
Andreas

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

SEO

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption