| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq |
| Date: | 2019-08-12 17:05:08 |
| Message-ID: | 93653d2b-7cf7-6992-7d3e-600ffd461354@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-08-12 18:02, Jeff Davis wrote:
> https://postgr.es/m/daf0017a1a5c2caabf88a4e00f66b4fcbdfeccad.camel%40j-davis.com
>
> The weakness of proposal #1 is that it's not very "future-proof" and we
> would likely need to change something about it later when we support
> new methods. That wouldn't break clients, but it would be annoying to
> need to support some old syntax and some new syntax for the connection
> parameters.
>
> Proposal #3 does not have this weakness. When we add sha-512, we could
> also add a parameter to specify that the client requires a certain hash
> algorithm for SCRAM.
>
> Do you favor that existing proposal #3, or are you proposing a fourth
> option?
In this context, I would prefer #2, but I would expand that to cover all
authentication methods, not only password methods.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-08-12 17:06:29 | Re: errbacktrace |
| Previous Message | legrand legrand | 2019-08-12 17:01:30 | Re: [survey] New "Stable" QueryId based on normalized query text |