| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |
| Date: | 2001-08-16 14:52:05 |
| Message-ID: | 9785.997973525@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> The problem with bumping the protocol version number is that it breaks
>> client-to-server compatibility *whether or not a particular connection
>> needs the new auth method*. Eg, a new client will be unable to talk to
>> an old server. This is not good.
> Why is this the case? There is nothing in the new client code that will
> conflict with an old server, right? Is it something hardwired in the
> client code?
No, but the old postmaster will reject it. See lines 1056ff in
postmaster.c.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-08-16 15:17:03 | Re: Fix for fetchone() and fetchmany() in Python interface |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-16 14:33:42 | Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords |