| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers |
| Date: | 2017-04-21 13:21:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ6D6Z12P3dysvxM9O_B1vX2N5jnAWE3yRUpQAL1ezfdw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi) wrote:
>> I think we should adopt that exact format, so that our verifiers are
>> compatible with RFC 5803. It doesn't make any immediate difference,
>> but since there is a standard out there, might as well follow it.
>
> +1
>
>> And just in case we get support for looking up SCRAM verifiers from
>> an LDAP server in the future, it will come handy as we won't need to
>> parse two different formats.
>
> Agreed.
+1 to all that. Consistency is a good thing.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2017-04-21 13:29:24 | Re: Triggers and logical replication (10devel) |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-04-21 13:20:56 | Re: On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers |