From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: scram and \password |
Date: | 2017-03-10 22:43:57 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSELwmfwgOt8U_rK15sHWuGeLhsWYihRtq9ADC3MZ=HTg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Should the \password tool in psql inspect password_encryption and act on it
> being 'scram'?
Not sure if it is wise to change the default fot this release.
> I didn't see this issue discussed, but the ability to search the archives
> for backslashes is rather limited.
I'll save you some time: it has not been discussed. Nor has
PQencryptPassword been mentioned. Changing to SCRAM is not that
complicated, just call scram_build_verifier() and you are good to go.
Instead of changing the default, I think that we should take this
occasion to rename PQencryptPassword to something like
PQhashPassword(), and extend it with a method argument to support both
md5 and scram. PQencryptPassword could also be marked as deprecated,
or let as-is for some time. For \password, we could have another
meta-command but that sounds grotty, or just extend \password with a
--method argument. Switching the default could happen in another
release.
A patch among those lines would be a simple, do people feel that this
should be part of PG 10?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-03-10 22:51:55 | Re: Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs? |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-03-10 22:42:08 | Re: Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs? |