From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
        Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: scram and \password
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:31:30 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <28650.1489758141.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:42:21 -0400
Message-ID: <28651.1489758141@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wro=
te:
>> 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-si=
de
>> 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 th=
em.

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


--=20
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers