On 2019-08-12 18:02, Jeff Davis wrote:
> https://postgr.es/m/daf0017a1a5c2caabf88a4e00f66b4fcbdfeccad.camel%40j-davis.com
>
> The weakness of proposal #1 is that it's not very "future-proof" and we
> would likely need to change something about it later when we support
> new methods. That wouldn't break clients, but it would be annoying to
> need to support some old syntax and some new syntax for the connection
> parameters.
>
> Proposal #3 does not have this weakness. When we add sha-512, we could
> also add a parameter to specify that the client requires a certain hash
> algorithm for SCRAM.
>
> Do you favor that existing proposal #3, or are you proposing a fourth
> option?
In this context, I would prefer #2, but I would expand that to cover all
authentication methods, not only password methods.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
