| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE/ALTER ROLE PASSWORD ('value' USING 'method') |
| Date: | 2017-03-09 14:34:01 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob=R7sPk2bGPGoVcYF_pu1UXzkvSPYT4wPsT591u9+g1g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, I agree with that for MD5, and after looking around I can see
> (like here http://prosody.im/doc/plain_or_hashed) as well that
> SCRAM-hashed is used. Now, there are as well references to the salt,
> like in protocol.sgml:
> "The salt to use when encrypting the password."
> Joe, do you think that in this case using the term "hashing" would be
> more appropriate? I would think so as we use it to hash the password.
I'm not Joe, but I think that would be more appropriate.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Borodin | 2017-03-09 14:43:27 | Re: [GSoC] Self introduction and question to mentors |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-09 14:33:09 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |