On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:27:40AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 03:28:09PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 12/22/17 03:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Second thoughts on 0002 as there is actually no need to move around
>>> errorMessage if the PGconn* pointer is saved in the SCRAM status data
>>> as both are linked. The attached simplifies the logic even more.
>>>
>>
>> That all looks pretty reasonable.
>
> Thanks for the review. Don't you think that the the refactoring
> simplifications should be done first though? This would result in
> producing the patch set in reverse order. I'll be fine to produce them
> if need be.
Well, here is a patch set doing the reverse operation: refactoring does
first in 0001 and support for tls-server-end-point is in 0002. Hope this
helps.
--
Michael