Re: [HACKERS] Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:30:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > The latest versions document this precisely, but I agree with Peter's concern
> > about plain "scram".  Suppose it's 2025 and PostgreSQL support SASL mechanisms
> > OAUTHBEARER, SCRAM-SHA-256, SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS, and SCRAM-SHA3-512.  What
> > should the pg_hba.conf options look like at that time?  I don't think having a
> > single "scram" option fits in such a world.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > I see two strategies that fit:
> >
> > 1. Single "sasl" option, with a GUC, similar to ssl_ciphers, controlling the
> >    mechanisms to offer.
> > 2. Separate options "scram_sha_256", "scram_sha3_512", "oauthbearer", etc.
> 
> Or we could have a sasl option, with a mandatory array of mechanisms
> to define one or more items, so method entries in pg_hba.conf would
> look llke that:
> sasl mechanism=scram_sha_256,scram_sha3_512

I like that.