Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA56924
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>;
	Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:22:23 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26305;
	Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:21:47 -0500 (EST)
To: "Ken J. Wright" <ken@ori-ind.com>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] pg_pwd problem, 2nd try 
In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.20000222130908.00b9f950@ori-ind.com> 
References: <3.0.1.32.20000222130908.00b9f950@ori-ind.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Ken J. Wright" <ken@ori-ind.com>
	message dated "Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:09:08 -0800"
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:21:46 -0500
Message-ID: <26301.951261706@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"Ken J. Wright" <ken@ori-ind.com> writes:
> If I use the ALTER USER sql statement, the file pg_pwd gets written in an
> older plain text format & the user can no longer authenticate. However,
> using pg_passwd from the command line reates a file similar to /etc/passwd
> including the username and an encrypted password. Known problem?

It is now ;-)

Peter changed the backend's idea about the format of pg_pwd, but
I guess he forgot about pg_passwd ...

I wonder whether we even need pg_passwd in its present form anymore.
Maybe it should just issue an ALTER USER command?

			regards, tom lane