Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 16:38:58
Message-ID: 87049F17-2D9F-436B-9011-55719136D273@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5 August 2018 19:01:04 EEST, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>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.

Yeah. In any case, the whole option is gone now, so we're good.

- Heikki

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrey Borodin 2018-08-05 16:45:36 Re: GiST VACUUM
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-08-05 16:01:04 Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type