Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM authentication, take three

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> Yeah, that would be reasonable. It can't be called just "password",
>> though, because there's no way to implement "password-or-md5-or-scram" in a
>> sensible way (see my reply to Simon at [1]). Unless we remove the support
>> for what "password" does today altogether, and redefine "password" to mean
>> just "md5-or-beyond". Which might not be a bad idea, but that's a separate
>> discussion.
>
> It is an interesting one though. "password" today is really only useful in
> the case of db_user_namespace=on, right? Given the very few people I think
> are using that feature, it wouldn't be unreasonable to rename it to
> something more closely related to that.

I think it would be nice to have something with the same functionality
as db_user_namespace that smells less like a giant hack.

Does db_user_namespace work with SCRAM?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company