Re: Patch to include PAM support...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Dominic J(dot) Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch to include PAM support...
Date: 2001-06-12 18:23:11
Message-ID: 12823.992370191@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> It is has the same problems as IDENT, and it doesn't add any new
> problems, and it meets people's needs, why not add it?

Because (a) it greatly increases the scope of the vulnerability,
and (b) it adds more code that will need to be rewritten to fix the
problem. I want to fix the blocking problem first, then solicit a
PAM patch that fits into the rewritten postmaster.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Darren Johnson 2001-06-12 18:29:20 RE: AW: Postgres Replication
Previous Message Limin Liu 2001-06-12 18:18:54 Big5 contains '\'

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-12 18:31:58 Re: Patch to include PAM support...
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-06-12 18:16:14 Re: Patch to include PAM support...