From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Julian Markwort <julian.markwort@uni-muenster.de>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Valery Popov <v.popov@postgrespro.ru>
Subject: Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 09:57:23 -0500
Message-ID: <20161214145723.GJ23417@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ce051da1-cc5a-2a06-a9a8-6a4d0d98bdd1@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <e139fcbc-cfb2-3a64-93ac-afd5ba342960@iki.fi>
<CAB7nPqSqEwRgmVCS_OW3sJn6baymQ6MsO3kKMRvHLC0RZaKaYA@mail.gmail.com>
<21eecdb8-365b-8347-1ae2-5278d1fe798c@iki.fi>
<CAB7nPqT2UGWm0ukdomC+mG-co6nmKer62vuSGRxwtc+jS8uQPA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAB7nPqQtD7jOpYCsB4Ga=Cz+tgh4Ngac6NAV-WLs9zxaw0Uu7w@mail.gmail.com>
<762f4875-a87e-cf0b-c06b-b357294d8be1@iki.fi>
<CAB7nPqTi5jC_AbVMOGidrVy1z6t3v==vWFvdNMxnQEN-WsutKg@mail.gmail.com>
<2d07165c-1793-e243-a2a9-e45b624c7580@iki.fi>
<CAB7nPqQ28o6ocOdbidOVmxxcKDMP=woZ=hvAVHKKAjAUtjZNyQ@mail.gmail.com>
<ce051da1-cc5a-2a06-a9a8-6a4d0d98bdd1@2ndquadrant.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column
> > of pg_authid
>
> Yes please.
This discussion seems to continue to come up and I don't entirely
understand why we keep trying to shove more things into pg_authid, or
worse, into rolpassword.
We should have an independent table for the verifiers, which has a
different column for the verifier type, and either starts off supporting
multiple verifiers per role or at least gives us the ability to add that
easily later. We should also move rolvaliduntil to that new table.
No, I am specifically *not* concerned with "backwards compatibility" of
that table- we continually add to it and change it and applications
which are so closely tied to PG that they look at pg_authid need to be
updated with nearly every release anyway. What we *do* need to make
sure we get correct is what pg_dump/pg_upgrade do, but that's entirely
within our control to manage and shouldn't be that much of an issue to
implement.
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com, hlinnaka@iki.fi, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, david@pgmasters.net, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david@fetter.org, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, magnus@hagander.net, julian.markwort@uni-muenster.de, v.popov@postgrespro.ru
Subject: Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)
In-Reply-To: <20161214145723.GJ23417@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox