pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: scram and \password
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:42:21 -0400
Message-ID: <28651.1489758141@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZ0MZCL8A90+9rvLjrgtnq1ZJSquQ+-6EVf5mhT6e4m4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMkU=1wfBgFPbfAMYZQE78p=VhZX7nN86aWkp0QcCp=+KxZ=bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB7nPqSELwmfwgOt8U_rK15sHWuGeLhsWYihRtq9ADC3MZ=HTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoY3VmPTn8gaKhx2fXXiMX_U2Ozf3qMXyVa+zsuMMox1HA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAB7nPqTZNZkbezTZ3WrTBU42cAuAGjyukJAs=iw=KN4GZGoXxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoYHvtOYex0N0DTm3hAvgZezZZpH789a13MzHDh_VgG9Ew@mail.gmail.com>
	<29551.1489459676@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<e4c3807b-fc53-5657-5372-b156e673a9d5@iki.fi>
	<39228d95-2560-19e4-d907-b1fd5a75fd23@joeconway.com>
	<6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAMkU=1wDS_RE_DXUDPF3s4EE8ENp3-svmcvmKfmSVa6QSNyV7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<16350.1489526094@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<a8b0d5cb-35d4-d686-3fae-f743659ae346@iki.fi>
	<CAB7nPqSjSmYK7H3S8A98giR6Jb=jKKTOMMruK1Kxw5Lfxc+Baw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoYreNVHDLYxH58Yew8SpYXppiJswJo=FEK0kBiNf06DHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<e2c82898-8e8a-d1c6-d748-902c6dd366b9@iki.fi>
	<CA+TgmoZ0MZCL8A90+9rvLjrgtnq1ZJSquQ+-6EVf5mhT6e4m4w@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>> It would make sense to have \password obey password_encryption GUC. Then
>> \password and ALTER USER would do the same thing, which would be less
>> surprising. Although it's also a bit weird for a GUC to affect client-side
>> behavior, so perhaps better to just document that \password will create a
>> SCRAM verifier, unless you explicitly tell it to create an MD5 hash, and add
>> a 'method' parameter to it.

> Either of those would be fine with me, but I think we should do one of them.

I vote for the second one; seems much less surprising and action-at-a-
distance-y.  And I think the entire point of \password is to *not* do
exactly what a bare ALTER USER would do, but to superimpose a layer of
best practice on it.  We certainly want to define use of SCRAM as being
best practice.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (81+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <28651.1489758141@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../28651.1489758141@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/28651.1489758141@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, hlinnaka@iki.fi, michael.paquier@gmail.com, jeff.janes@gmail.com, mail@joeconway.com
  Subject: Re: scram and \password
  In-Reply-To: <28651.1489758141@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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