From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Andrus <kobruleht2(at)hot(dot)ee> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Password encryption method |
Date: | 2007-01-20 01:35:46 |
Message-ID: | 20070120013546.GA30390@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 18:24:32 +0200,
Andrus <kobruleht2(at)hot(dot)ee> wrote:
> > It might make more sense to use your own table of users and hashed
> > passwords
> > rather than postgres'. This would depend somewhat on the overlap of users
> > who
> > are using your application and those who connect directly to the database.
> > If there isn't much overlap, having a separate table is probably better.
>
> Using own table requires storing Postgres user name and password in client
> computer. Thus this information is available to virtually everyone haveing
> access to client computer.
> So this is very bad idea and should avoided at all.
No, the tables would be on the server, the same as was already being done.
Using a separate table makes it more future proof.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2007-01-20 01:39:24 | Re: Multiple column index question. |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-20 00:21:50 | Re: Help : Microsoft SQL Server equivalents in |