On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paquier@gmail.com) wrote:
>> (Robert you were in this set at this point), and the same thing was
>> concluded during the informal lunch meeting at PGcon. The point is,
>> the existing SCRAM patch set can survive without touching at *all* the
>> format of pg_authid. We could block SCRAM authentication when
>> "password" is used in pg_hba.conf and as well as when "scram" is used
>> with a plain password stored in pg_authid. Or look at the format of
>> the string in the catalog if "password" is defined and decide the
>> authentication protocol to follow based on that.
>
> As I mentioned up-thread, moving forward with minimal changes to get
> SCRAM in certainly makes sense, but I do think we should be open to
> (and, ideally, encouraging people to work towards) having a seperate
> table for verifiers with independent columns for type and verifier.
Definitely, and you know my position on the matter or I would not have
written last year's patch series. Both things are just orthogonal IMO
at this point. And it would be good to focus just on one problem at
the moment to get it out.
--
Michael