Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq |
Дата | |
Msg-id | daf0017a1a5c2caabf88a4e00f66b4fcbdfeccad.camel@j-davis.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:27 -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > Seems to be a lot to configure. I'm more of a fan of the previous > method; it'd work nicely with how we've presently defined things and > should be easy to put into a DSN/URI/env variable. Proposals on the table: 1. Hierarchical semantics, where you specify the least-secure acceptable method: password_protocol = {any,md5,scram-sha-256,scram-sha-256-plus} 2. Comma-list approach, where you specify exactly which protocols are acceptable, or "any" to mean that we don't care. 3. three-setting approach: channel_binding = {disable|prefer|require} password_plaintext = {disable|enable} password_md5 = {disable|enable} It looks like Jonathan prefers #1. #1 seems direct and clearly applies today, and corresponds to auth methods on the server side. I'm not a fan of #2, it seems likely to result in a bunch of clients with overly-specific lists of things with long names that can never really go away. #3 is a little more abstract, but also seems more future-proof, and may tie in to what Stephen is talking about with respect to controlling auth methods from the client, or moving more protocols within SASL. Regards, Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: