| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, 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: | 2017-03-17 12:01:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYreNVHDLYxH58Yew8SpYXppiJswJo=FEK0kBiNf06DHQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> On 03/14/2017 11:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> In short, I don't think that argument refutes my position that "md5"
>>> in pg_hba.conf should be understood as allowing SCRAM passwords too.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, let's do that. Here's a patch.
>
> At least this has the merit of making \password simpler from psql
> without a kind of --method option: if the backend is 9.6 or older,
> just generate a MD5-hash, and SCRAM-hash for newer versions.
> PQencryptPassword still needs to be extended so as it accepts a hash
> method though.
What if the user doesn't want to switch to SCRAM because they also use
some connector that hasn't been updated to support it?
I bet there will be a lot of people in that situation.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-03-17 12:30:52 | Re: WAL Consistency checking for hash indexes |
| Previous Message | Yugo Nagata | 2017-03-17 11:57:23 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |