Subject: Re: scram and \password
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
 Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
References: <a8b0d5cb-35d4-d686-3fae-f743659ae346@iki.fi>
 <CAB7nPqSjSmYK7H3S8A98giR6Jb=jKKTOMMruK1Kxw5Lfxc+Baw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fe2c096e-7b06-3e8e-0804-109def6b5d98@iki.fi>
 <CAB7nPqQ3QiPMgGv5OCz1wsocx7PHdZg5ursQOpyOb96AZuvmGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5478ab75-404f-9490-9355-dc1365ce3d7f@iki.fi>
 <CAB7nPqTLzbHp5XmREoqiL31uF8VRz4jM1VhDRMZLOJuVg8gZoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <dead641a-1fc8-0fd7-89d6-b818ac61b31a@iki.fi>
 <CAB7nPqQmJ5t=rd67paE7DWxuSi0C4X=5_pnzZchH7qFkBHy==A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYk+xfnvYC4xtQD4qFdu7xKn6bRLC-baH5MDdtyCSxg6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <f56a2116-a466-ad6c-03d5-413294bfca9f@iki.fi>
 <20170410035323.GA2846583@tornado.leadboat.com>
 <CAB7nPqSbsCBCxy8-DtwzRxYgTnbGUtY4uFEkLQhG=R=uo=g8Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <66e776c9-e02c-3683-28df-339f7f64ea66@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:04:14 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB7nPqSbsCBCxy8-DtwzRxYgTnbGUtY4uFEkLQhG=R=uo=g8Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 04/10/2017 08:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As there have been some conflicts because of the commit of SASLprep,
> here is a rebased set of patches.

I've committed a modified version of the first patch, to change the 
on-disk format to RFC 5803, as mentioned on the other thread 
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/351ba574-85ea-d9b8-9689-8c928dd0955d@iki.fi).

I'll continue reviewing the rest of the patch on Monday, but one glaring 
issue is that we cannot add an argument to the existing libpq 
PQencryptPassword() function, because that's part of the public API. It 
would break all applications that use PQencryptPassword().

What we need to do is to add a new function. What should we call that? 
We don't have a tradition of using "Ex" or such suffix to mark extended 
versions of existing functions. PQencryptPasswordWithMethod(user, pass, 
method) ?

- Heikki


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