| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Konstantin Izmailov <kizmailov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: question about SSIS |
| Date: | 2009-05-24 18:44:52 |
| Message-ID: | 27128.1243190692@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 15:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's no way we could implement that without a protocol change,
>> and it doesn't seem worth it to me. The idea that the client gets
>> to choose seems like a bad idea from a security standpoint anyhow...
> Wouldn't this be solved just by having fall through authentication?
It's still a protocol change --- right now, clients have no reason
to expect that failing on the first auth challenge will lead to
another challenge of a different type, or indeed lead to anything
at all except disconnection. I think libpq, for example, just drops
the connection on its own authority if asked for a password it can't
provide.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-24 20:41:19 | Re: INTERVAL data type and libpq - what format? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-24 18:21:40 | Re: do postgresql this job for me ? (firebird user) |