On 12 March 2017 at 06:51, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > My opinion is that the user visible aspects of this should be deprecated > and correct syntax provided. But perhaps that is overkill.
FWIW, in my experience, pretty much nobody understands the pretty tangled behaviour of "WITH [ENCRYPTED] PASSWORD", you have to understand the fact table of: * ENCRYPTED, UNENCRYPTED or neither set * password_encryption GUC on or off * password begins / doesn't begin with fixed string 'md5' to fully know what will happen. Then of course, you have to understand how all this interacts with pg_hba.conf's 'password' and 'md5' options. It's a right mess. Since our catalogs don't keep track of the hash separately to the password text and use prefixes instead, and since we need compatibility for dumps, it's hard to do a great deal about though. I'm not convinced that a keyword change will do much good, the whole thing really needs a reassessment to make sure that it's clearer to users/admins and has fewer moving parts. So I'm in favour of fixing the docs but I'm not keen on changing the SQL syntax in a way that just kind of papers over part of the problems. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
