Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-09-29 15:05:36
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs
Previous:From: Petr JelinekDate: 2009-09-29 14:52:02
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group