From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: scram and \password |
Date: | 2017-03-14 03:20:47 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTUBYwPfr4o5z+petZ+94ymGRjev1U7x0xdA8zruqtRXg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm not talking about changing the default, just having it be possible
>> to use \password with the new system as it was with the old, whatever
>> exactly we think that means.
I think that this means looking at password_encryption within
PQencryptPassword(), something that could silently break some
applications. That's why with Joe we are mentioning upthread to extend
PQencryptPassword() with a hashing method, and have a function to
allow retrieval of the password type for a given user.
> Seems to me the intended behavior of \password is to use the best
> available practice. So my guess is that it ought to use SCRAM when
> talking to a >= 10.0 server. What the previous password was ought
> to be irrelevant, even if it could find that out which it shouldn't
> be able to IMO.
And in a release or two? SCRAM being a fresh feature, switching the
hashing now is not much a conservative approach.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-14 03:34:14 | Re: scram and \password |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2017-03-14 03:01:14 | Unacccented Fractions |