Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On 08/19/2016 09:46 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>> On 08/18/2016 03:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
>>> wrote:
>>> For the current ip.c, I don't have a better idea than putting in
>>> src/common/ip.c the set of routines used by both the frontend and
>>> backend, and have fe_ip.c the new file that has the frontend-only
>>> things. Need a patch?
>>
>> Yes, please. I don't think there's anything there that's needed by only the
>> frontend, but some of the functions are needed by only the backend. So I
>> think we'll end up with src/common/ip.c, and src/backend/libpq/be-ip.c. (Not
>> sure about those names, pick something that makes sense, given what's left
>> in the files.)
>
> OK, so let's do that first correctly. Attached are two patches:
> - 0001 moves md5 to src/common
> - 0002 that does the same for ip.c.
> By the way, it seems to me that having be-ip.c is not that much worth
> it. I am noticing that only pg_range_sockaddr could be marked as
> backend-only. pg_foreach_ifaddr is being used as well by
> tools/ifaddrs/, and this one calls as well pg_sockaddr_cidr_mask. Or
> is there still some utility in having src/tools/ifaddrs? If not we
> could move pg_sockaddr_cidr_mask and pg_foreach_ifaddr to be
> backend-only. With pg_range_sockaddr that would make half the routines
> to be marked as backend-only.

I decided to split ip.c anyway. I'd like to keep the files in 
src/common/ip.c as small as possible, so I think it makes sense to be 
quite surgical when moving things there. I kept the pg_foreach_ifaddr() 
function in src/backend/libpq/ifaddr.c (I renamed the file to avoid 
confusion with the ip.c that got moved), even though it means that 
test_ifaddr will have to continue to copy the file directly from 
src/backend/libpq. I'm OK with that, because test_ifaddrs is just a 
little test program that mimics the backend's behaviour of enumerating 
interfaces. I don't consider it to be a "real" frontend application.

Pushed, after splitting. Thanks! Now let's move on to the more 
substantial patches.

- Heikki