Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type
Date: 2018-08-05 16:01:04
Message-ID: 1212.1533484864@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> Sorry, I see now that there was indeed a test for
> scram_channel_binding='', which meant "no channel binding". That was
> confusing, I assumed '' was the default.

Ugh, it isn't? There's a general principle in libpq that setting a
parameter to an empty string is the same as leaving it unset. I think
violating that pattern is a bad idea.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2018-08-05 16:38:58 Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2018-08-05 14:15:19 Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type