Re: 2 forks for md5?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: 2 forks for md5?
Дата
Msg-id 16717.1127428972@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: 2 forks for md5?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: 2 forks for md5?  ("Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: 2 forks for md5?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I turned on passwords and did see duplicate connections:

>     LOG:  connection received: host=[local]
>     LOG:  connection received: host=[local]
>     LOG:  connection authorized: user=postgres database=test
>     LOG:  disconnection: session time: 0:00:00.61 user=postgres database=test host=[local]

> Basically psql first tries with no password, then when it fails asking
> for a password, it prompts for one and connects.  You will notice only
> one "authorized:" message.  I think that is the real "connection" line,
> rather than the "recevied" lines.  Not sure how we can improve this.  We
> could print an "authorization failed" message.  Would that help, or just
> be overkill?

I think that would get people more worried rather than less so ---
psql's customary behavior would make it look like you were being
regularly attacked by password guessers :-(.  We do already log the
error message in the cases where a password is actually supplied
and is wrong, so an additional message doesn't seem very helpful.

One answer is to downgrade the "connection received" to a DEBUGn
message, so that it's only seen by those who presumably have something
of a clue.  I don't really care for this, but you could certainly argue
that the other messages are sufficient for normal purposes.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 2 forks for md5?
Следующее
От: "Andrew Dunstan"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 2 forks for md5?