Re: Rejecting weak passwords

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, mlortiz <mlortiz(at)uci(dot)cu>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Date: 2009-09-29 15:02:29
Message-ID: 9391.1254236549@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Why do we need to answer that question? If all we do is provide a hook,
> the cost is very low, and the decision on value is left to whoever is
> deploying some module to use the hook.

Right. As long as it's just a hook, it's not enough work to justify
lots of debate. There is a plausible use-case, and that's enough.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-09-29 15:05:36 Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2009-09-29 14:52:02 Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs