On 02/02/2017 05:50 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On 2 February 2017 at 00:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Ok, I'll drop the second patch for now. I committed the first patch after
fixing the things you and Michael pointed out. Thanks for the review!
dbd69118 caused small compiler warning for me.
Th
On 2 February 2017 at 00:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Ok, I'll drop the second patch for now. I committed the first patch after
> fixing the things you and Michael pointed out. Thanks for the review!
dbd69118 caused small compiler warning for me.
The attached fixed it.
--
David Rowley
On 01/17/2017 11:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into
two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function
with get_password_type(), without changing the representation o
On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into
> two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function
> with get_password_type(), without changing the representation of
> pg_authid.rolpassword. That is hopeful
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into
>> two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function
>> with get_password_type(), without changing th
On 1/3/17 9:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into
> two. The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function
> with get_password_type(), without changing the representation of
> pg_authid.rolpassword. That is hopeful
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Since not everyone agrees with this approach, I split this patch into two.
> The first patch refactors things, replacing the isMD5() function with
> get_password_type(), without changing the representation of
> pg_authid.rolpassword. Tha
On 12/21/2016 04:09 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Thanks for having a look! Attached is a new version, with that bug fixed.
I have been able more advanced testing without the crash and things
seem to work properly. The attached set of tests is also able to pass
for all the combinations of hba conf
On 12/14/2016 01:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I just noticed that the manual for CREATE ROLE says:
Note that older clients might lack support for the MD5 authentication
mechanism that is needed to work with passwords that are stored
encrypted.
That's is incorrect. The alternative to MD5 a
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 12/16/2016 03:31 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Actually, it does still perform that check. There's a new function,
> plain_crypt_verify, that passwordcheck uses now. plain_crypt_verify() is
> intended to work with any future hash forma
David,
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:14:40PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
> > > > > Even if
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:14:40PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> David,
>
> * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
> > > > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it
David,
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
> > > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully
> > > normalized, because there's still a dependency between t
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:08 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> Would a view that shows only what's to the left of the first semicolon
> suit this purpose?
Of course it would, you would just need to make the routines now
checking the shape of MD5 and SCRAM identifiers available at SQL level
and feed the s
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:34:19AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Heikki,
>
> * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
> > Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully
> > normalized, because there's still a dependency between the
> > verifier and verifier type columns. Y
Heikki,
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
> Even if you have a separate "verifier type" column, it's not fully
> normalized, because there's still a dependency between the verifier
> and verifier type columns. You will always need to look at the
> verifier type to make sense of the ver
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> It's more convenient to carry the type information with the verifier itself,
> in backend code, in pg_dump, etc. Sure, you could have a separate "transfer"
> text format that has the prefix, and strip it out when the datum enters the
> s
On 12/16/2016 03:31 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The only way to distinguish, is to know about every verifier kind there is,
and check whether rolpassword looks valid as anything else than a plaintext
password. And we already got tripped
On 12/16/2016 05:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> From the discussions of last year on -hackers, it was decided to *not*
>>> have an additional column per complains from
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> From the discussions of last year on -hackers, it was decided to *not*
>> have an additional column per complains from a couple of hackers
>> (Robert you were in this set at this poi
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>>> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allo
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> (Robert you were in this set at this point), and the same thing was
>> concluded during the informal lunch meeting at PGcon. The point is,
>> the existing SCRAM patch set can survive wi
Michael,
* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USE
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow
>> > specifying the verifier type independently.
>>
>> That'
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow
> > specifying the verifier type independently.
>
> That's what the last patch set I looked at actually does.
Well, s
On 12/15/16 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow
> specifying the verifier type independently.
That's what the last patch set I looked at actually does.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Devel
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
>> On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> >* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> >>On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> >>>I would be tempted to sugges
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The only way to distinguish, is to know about every verifier kind there is,
> and check whether rolpassword looks valid as anything else than a plaintext
> password. And we already got tripped by a bug-of-omission on that once. If
> we
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
> On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >>On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>>I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column
> >>>of pg_authid
On 12/15/2016 03:00 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
But, a password stored in plaintext works with either MD5 or SCRAM, or any
future authentication mechanism. So as soon as we have SCRAM authentication,
it becomes somewhat useful again.
In
On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column
of pg_authid
Yes please.
This discussion seems to continue to come up
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> But, a password stored in plaintext works with either MD5 or SCRAM, or any
> future authentication mechanism. So as soon as we have SCRAM authentication,
> it becomes somewhat useful again.
>
> In a nutshell:
>
> auth / stored MD5
On 12/14/2016 11:41 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
On 14 December 2016 20:12:05 EET, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Storing plaintext passwords has been bad form for just about forever and
I would
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinn...@iki.fi) wrote:
> On 14 December 2016 20:12:05 EET, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> I would so like to just drop support for plain passwords completely
> >:) But
> >> there's a backwards compatibility issue
On 14 December 2016 20:12:05 EET, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I would so like to just drop support for plain passwords completely
>:) But
>> there's a backwards compatibility issue to think about of course.
>>
>> But -- is there any
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:27:15AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I would so like to just drop support for plain passwords completely :) But
> there's a backwards compatibility issue to think about of course.
>
> But -- is there any actual usecase for them anymore?
I thought we recommended 'pass
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column
> > of pg_authid
>
> Yes please.
This discussion seems to continue to come up and I don't entirely
understand why w
On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column
> of pg_authid
Yes please.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-
On 12/14/2016 12:27 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I would so like to just drop support for plain passwords completely :) But
there's a backwards compatibility issue to think about of course.
But -- is there any actual usecase for them anymore?
Hmm. At the moment, I don't think there is.
But, a p
On 12/14/2016 12:15 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
This work is definitely something that should be done before anything
else. Need a patch or are you on it?
I'm on it..
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://w
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 10:19 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Couple of things I should write down before I forget:
>>>
>>> 1. It's a bit cumbersome that the scram verifiers sto
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The tip of the work branch can now do SCRAM authentication, when a user has
> a plaintext password in pg_authid.rolpassword. The reverse doesn't work,
> however: you cannot do plain "password" authentication, when the user has a
> SCRAM
43 matches
Mail list logo
