From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 21:59:04 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS8eB6z_GGEspKC1xuPpWCWcm1qi0oWD-0CN_Dg+ABk4A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 06:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I am Joe and I agree ;-)
OK I'll spawn a new thread on the matter.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-03-09 22:03:04 | Re: Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-03-09 21:48:49 | Re: contrib modules and relkind check |