Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> 1) One could have a set of GUCs like min_password_length,
>> min_password_nonchars and similar that everybody
>> could configure. This is not extremely flexible though.
>> 2) Another idea would be a GUC that contains a regular
>> expression that a password may *not* match.
>> Perhaps that's too limiting too.
>> 3) I have also considered a GUC that points to a loadable
>> module that performs the password check if set.
> My vote is for #3, if anything.
Yeah. I think there is no chance of anything in this vein getting
accepted into core Postgres, if only because everybody will have a
different idea of what it needs to do. A hook function (no need
for a GUC) would be a reasonable proposal.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2009-09-28 15:05:39|
|Subject: Re: WIP - syslogger infrastructure changes|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-09-28 14:43:28|
|Subject: Re: syslog_line_prefix |