| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: scram and \password |
| Date: | 2017-04-21 20:04:14 |
| Message-ID: | 66e776c9-e02c-3683-28df-339f7f64ea66@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/10/2017 08:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As there have been some conflicts because of the commit of SASLprep,
> here is a rebased set of patches.
I've committed a modified version of the first patch, to change the
on-disk format to RFC 5803, as mentioned on the other thread
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/351ba574-85ea-d9b8-9689-8c928dd0955d@iki.fi)
I'll continue reviewing the rest of the patch on Monday, but one glaring
issue is that we cannot add an argument to the existing libpq
PQencryptPassword() function, because that's part of the public API. It
would break all applications that use PQencryptPassword().
What we need to do is to add a new function. What should we call that?
We don't have a tradition of using "Ex" or such suffix to mark extended
versions of existing functions. PQencryptPasswordWithMethod(user, pass,
method) ?
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-21 20:13:55 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2017-04-21 19:55:38 | Re: On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers |