Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication
Date: 2016-02-15 01:47:24
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRr0QYH76aXgpy1DP7+pDiybSiDDvKeB+7DjDPMqHsVwg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> I would start by pointing out that pg_user currently uses pg_shadow..
> Why do we need pg_shadow or pg_user or related views at all..?

pg_user/pg_shadow have the advantage to be world-readable and mask
password values.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-02-15 01:51:10 Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-02-15 01:45:23 Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication