Re: scram and \password

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: scram and \password
Date: 2017-03-13 03:14:44
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTZNZkbezTZ3WrTBU42cAuAGjyukJAs=iw=KN4GZGoXxA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Seems like an odd way to phrase it. Aren't we talking about making a
> feature that worked in previous releases continue to work?

Considering how fresh scram is, it seems clear to me that we do not
want to just switch the default values of password_encryption, the
default behaviors of PQencryptPassword() and \password only to scram,
but have something else. Actually if we change nothing for default
deployments of Postgres using md5, PQencryptPassword() and \password
would still work properly.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2017-03-13 03:21:10 Re: Logical decoding on standby
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-03-13 03:10:11 Re: scram and \password