Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password
Дата
Msg-id CAB7nPqSELwmfwgOt8U_rK15sHWuGeLhsWYihRtq9ADC3MZ=HTg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.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.

> I didn't see this issue discussed, but the ability to search the archives
> for backslashes is rather limited.

I'll save you some time: it has not been discussed. Nor has
PQencryptPassword been mentioned. Changing to SCRAM is not that
complicated, just call scram_build_verifier() and you are good to go.

Instead of changing the default, I think that we should take this
occasion to rename PQencryptPassword to something like
PQhashPassword(), and extend it with a method argument to support both
md5 and scram. PQencryptPassword could also be marked as deprecated,
or let as-is for some time. For \password, we could have another
meta-command but that sounds grotty, or just extend \password with a
--method argument. Switching the default could happen in another
release.

A patch among those lines would be a simple, do people feel that this
should be part of PG 10?
-- 
Michael



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "David G. Johnston"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?
Следующее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Should we eliminate or reduce HUP from docs?