Message-ID: <11a5c3b483f1c0140f9fc5cf863d8ac61a28e60a.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add libpq parameter 'channel_binding'.
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <jdavis@postgresql.org>, pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:14:47 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20190930070826.GM2888@paquier.xyz>
References: <E1iCVWg-00057D-8U@gemulon.postgresql.org>
	 <24857.1569775891@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190929234733.GA2888@paquier.xyz>
	 <20190930064539.GK2888@paquier.xyz> <20190930070826.GM2888@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 16:08 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So, something like the attached looks better to me.  Using a server
> which publishes SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS, I get the following over SSL:
> 1) client supports channel binding:
> 1-1) channel_binding = disable => OK, with SCRAM-SHA-256 
> 1-2) channel_binding = prefer => OK, with SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS
> 1-3) channel_binding = require => OK, with SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS
> 2) client does not support channel binding
> 2-1) channel_binding = disable => OK, with SCRAM-SHA-256
> 2-2) channel_binding = prefer => OK, with SCRAM-SHA-256
> 2-3) channel_binding = require => failure with new error message,
> instead of the confusing one.

For 2-3, shouldn't we error at an earlier stage? The user of the client
has requested something impossible to satisfy.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis