From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
        David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
        Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
        Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication
In-reply-to: <20160215015110.GL3331@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20150905003147.GD21484@momjian.us>
 <CAB7nPqQutw9kRSmu9Ww5CY2Lpmn_=SWfiqgXDtDoH_jdrS7EgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <56BE1ECD.3020905@pgmasters.net>
 <CAB7nPqTDD_tnU2Pb3LuFcEB0M8iZxAUzemcegqgztxWk26jL4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160215001725.GH3331@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <CAB7nPqQ-p0kiVsLZaDSDW2+pe3voO2R9qu6wgfYWZBJZRDC4Rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160215005640.GI3331@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <CAB7nPqQqg3PiU9ZREmTzh3_QSJOah7aUWKzhaJLAxQY_hF6JAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160215012326.GK3331@tamriel.snowman.net> <5746.1455500723@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20160215015110.GL3331@tamriel.snowman.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
	message dated "Sun, 14 Feb 2016 20:51:10 -0500"
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 20:58:17 -0500
Message-ID: <6174.1455501497@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> How about we just say that the password in these old views always reads
>> out as '********' even when there is a password, and we invent new views
>> that carry real auth information?  (Hopefully in an extensible way.)

> I'd be alright with that approach, I'd just rather that any clients
> which actually want to read the password field be updated to look at the
> extensible and sensible base catalogs, and not some hacked up array that
> we shoved into that field.

Yeah, I'm good with that.  I just don't think the breakage needs to extend
to clients that aren't trying to read auth-related information.

BTW, if we haven't learned this lesson by now: I'm pretty sure that every
single one of these views is an attempt to emulate what *used* to be the
real base catalog, in some previous release.  Maybe we should stop
expecting clients to read the real catalog, ever, in favor of a sanitized
view?  Although I don't know exactly what that would lead to in terms of
what we'd expose that's different from what the base catalog is.  But it's
worth thinking about whether there is a way to avoid having this same
discussion again in five or ten years.

			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