Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Janes
Тема Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password
Дата
Msg-id CAMkU=1wDS_RE_DXUDPF3s4EE8ENp3-svmcvmKfmSVa6QSNyV7g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:

> I was also thinking about that. Basically a primary method and a
> fallback. If that were the case, a gradual transition could happen, and
> if we want \password to enforce best practice it would be ok.

Why exactly would anyone want "md5 only"?  I should think that "scram
only" is a sensible pg_hba setting, if the DBA feels that md5 is too
insecure, but I do not see the point of "md5 only" in 2017.  I think
we should just start interpreting that as "md5 or better".

Without md5-only, a user who uses \password to change their password from a newer client would lock themselves out of connecting again from older clients.  As a conscious decision (either of the DBA or the user) that would be OK, but to have it happen by default would be unfortunate.
 
Cheers,

Jeff

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Kevin Grittner
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GSOC 17] Eliminate O(N^2) scaling from rw-conflicttracking in serializable transactions
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Index usage for elem-contained-by-const-range clauses