Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Date
Msg-id 9639.997971620@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
List pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> We aren't.  I can do that, but have not discussed it yet.  If we do it
> is clearly a protocol change.  How will old clients handle longer salt,
> and how do I know if they are older if I don't bump up the protocol
> version number?

All of this is under the aegis of a new auth method code, so it doesn't
matter.  Either clients handle the new auth method, or they don't.

The problem with bumping the protocol version number is that it breaks
client-to-server compatibility *whether or not a particular connection
needs the new auth method*.  Eg, a new client will be unable to talk to
an old server.  This is not good.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords