Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cncWh-0001u2-Qg for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:49:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cncWh-0002VX-76 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:49:31 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cncVE-0008Le-3J for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:48:00 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cncVB-0005Wp-Hv for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:47:58 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v2E2luBe029552; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:47:56 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Michael Paquier , Jeff Janes , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: scram and \password In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:35:42 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29550.1489459676.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:47:56 -0400 Message-ID: <29551.1489459676@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > I'm not talking about changing the default, just having it be possible > to use \password with the new system as it was with the old, whatever > exactly we think that means. Seems to me the intended behavior of \password is to use the best available practice. So my guess is that it ought to use SCRAM when talking to a >= 10.0 server. What the previous password was ought to be irrelevant, even if it could find that out which it shouldn't be able to IMO. 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