Re: Proposal: Support custom authentication methods using hooks

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, samay sharma <smilingsamay(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Support custom authentication methods using hooks
Date: 2022-03-01 06:26:23
Message-ID: Yh28j5PoG+mtAnSH@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 04:42:55PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Keeping it around will just push out the point at which everyone will
> finally be done with it, as there's really only two groups: those who
> have already moved to scram, and those who won't move until they want to
> upgrade to a release that doesn't have md5.

FWIW, I am not sure if we are at this point yet. An extra reason to
remove it would be that it is a support burden, but I don't have seen
in recent memory any problems related to it that required any deep
changes in the way to use it, and its code paths are independent.

The last time I played with this area is the recent error handling
improvement with cryptohashes but MD5 has actually helped here in
detecting the problem as a patched OpenSSL would complain if trying to
use MD5 as hash function when FIPS is enabled.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com 2022-03-01 06:27:44 RE: logical replication restrictions
Previous Message Yugo NAGATA 2022-03-01 06:17:04 pipeline mode and commands not allowed in a transaction block