Re: Design Considerations for New Authentication Methods

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Design Considerations for New Authentication Methods
Date: 2006-11-02 20:43:09
Message-ID: 20061102204309.GR24675@kenobi.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Richard Troy (rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com) wrote:
> ...I thought you said this _needs_ to be done - by using words like
> "unacceptible" and "required" - and I disagree. There's a difference
> between what needs to be done and what is desired to be done. Further, I
> never said "shouldn't."

For PG to be an option in certain environments, it *needs* to be done
because in those environments username/password are *unacceptable*.
Additionally, there's someone (actually, more than one it seems) who's
willing to spend the time and energy to implement it. If it's not
necessary for your environment, great! If you weren't suggesting it
shouldn't be implemented or accepted then I've truely got no idea what
the intent of your previous mail was.

Enjoy,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Troy 2006-11-02 20:48:04 Re: Design Considerations for New Authentication Methods
Previous Message Nolan Cafferky 2006-11-02 20:37:33 Re: Coding style question