| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Mark Cave-Ayland <mark(dot)cave-ayland(at)ilande(dot)co(dot)uk>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Possible PostgreSQL 8.3beta4 bug with MD5 authentication in psql? |
| Date: | 2007-12-08 15:09:50 |
| Message-ID: | 10648.1197126590@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 3. Invent another libpq function, maybe PQconnectionNeedsPassword,
>> that does the right thing for the password-checking tests.
> My vote goes to (3), if the work can be done quickly, or (1) if it
> can't.
I don't think it's a big problem to do, as long as we are agreed on
the behavior we want. In particular, consider:
1. If libpq obtains a password internally (ie, from PGPASSWORD or
~/.pgpass), and it's wrong, do we want a user password prompt?
2. If we prompt the user for a password, and it's wrong, do we
want to try again?
Our historical behavior on both points was "no", but at least
the second one seems a bit questionable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-12-08 15:54:03 | Re: buildenv.pl/buildenv.bat |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-12-08 13:23:22 | Re: Possible PostgreSQL 8.3beta4 bug with MD5 authentication in psql? |