Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password
Date
Msg-id 66e776c9-e02c-3683-28df-339f7f64ea66@iki.fi
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 04/10/2017 08:42 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As there have been some conflicts because of the commit of SASLprep,
> here is a rebased set of patches.

I've committed a modified version of the first patch, to change the 
on-disk format to RFC 5803, as mentioned on the other thread 
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/351ba574-85ea-d9b8-9689-8c928dd0955d@iki.fi).

I'll continue reviewing the rest of the patch on Monday, but one glaring 
issue is that we cannot add an argument to the existing libpq 
PQencryptPassword() function, because that's part of the public API. It 
would break all applications that use PQencryptPassword().

What we need to do is to add a new function. What should we call that? 
We don't have a tradition of using "Ex" or such suffix to mark extended 
versions of existing functions. PQencryptPasswordWithMethod(user, pass, 
method) ?

- Heikki




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start