From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, samay sharma <smilingsamay(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Support custom authentication methods using hooks |
Date: | 2022-03-02 15:30:52 |
Message-ID: | 20220302153051.GD10577@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com) wrote:
> On 02.03.22 15:16, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> >>I find that a lot of people are still purposely using md5. Removing it
> >>now or in a year would be quite a disruption.
> >
> >What are the reasons they are still purposely using it? The ones I have
> >seen/heard are:
> >
> >- Using an older driver
> >- On a pre-v10 PG
> >- Unaware of SCRAM
>
> I'm not really sure, but it seems like they are content with what they have
> and don't want to bother with the new fancy stuff.
There were lots and lots of folks who were comfortable with
recovery.conf, yet we removed that without any qualms from one major
version to the next. md5 will have had 5 years of overlap with scram.
> >What I'm proposing above is to start the process of deprecating it as an
> >auth method, which also allows to continue the education efforts to
> >upgrae. Does that make sense?
>
> I'm not in favor of starting a process that will result in removal of the
> md5 method at this time.
I am.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua Brindle | 2022-03-02 15:35:44 | Re: [PoC/RFC] Multiple passwords, interval expirations |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2022-03-02 15:29:45 | Re: Proposal: Support custom authentication methods using hooks |