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 9785.997973525@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> 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.

> Why is this the case?  There is nothing in the new client code that will
> conflict with an old server, right?  Is it something hardwired in the
> client code?

No, but the old postmaster will reject it.  See lines 1056ff in
postmaster.c.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix for fetchone() and fetchmany() in Python interface
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix for fetchone() and fetchmany() in Python interface