| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM |
| Date: | 2013-09-12 14:39:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20130912143944.GM2706@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andrew Dunstan (andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net) wrote:
> You forgot to mention that we'd actually like to get away from being
> tied closely to OpenSSL because it has caused license grief in the
> past (not to mention that it's fairly dirty to manage).
While I agree with this sentiment (and have complained bitterly about
OpenSSL's license in the past), I'd rather see us implement this
(perhaps with a shim layer, if that's possible/sensible) even if
only OpenSSL is supported than to not have the capability at all. It
seems highly unlikely we'd ever be able to drop support for OpenSSL
completely; we've certainly not made any progress towards that and I
don't think forgoing adding new features would make such a change any
more or less likely to happen.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-09-12 14:41:22 | Re: Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-09-12 14:35:41 | Re: review: pgbench progress report improvements |