Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Patch to include PAM support...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Dominic J(dot) Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch to include PAM support...
Date: 2001-06-13 15:31:13
Message-ID: 26527.992446273@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> Basically, we have some people who want it.  Now we need to hear from
>> people who don't want it.   I have a "no" from Tom and a "yes" from
>> "Peter E" (and the author).

> Not in the current form.

I think Peter's main objection was that it'd always prompt for a
password whether needed or not.

Could we change the PAM code so that it tries to run the PAM auth cycle
immediately on receipt of a connection request?  If it gets a callback
for a password, it abandons the PAM conversation, sends off a password
request packet, and then tries again when the password comes back.

Of course, this would be hugely simpler if the work were being done in
a dedicated forked child of the postmaster ;-) ;-) ... just send the
request packet when PAM asks for a password, and sleep till it comes
back.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-06-13 15:33:47
Subject: Re: Patch to include PAM support...
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-06-13 15:18:30
Subject: Re: Patch to include PAM support...

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-06-13 15:33:47
Subject: Re: Patch to include PAM support...
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-06-13 15:18:30
Subject: Re: Patch to include PAM support...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group