On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:05:14PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Except tht X.509 is already done (in a sense). The client can supply a
> certificate that the server can check, and vice-versa. You can't link
> this with the postgresql username yet, but I havn't seen any proposals
> about how to do that.
I suggest associating the SHA-1 fingerprint with the ROLE. I would love
to have this.
> The reason I wanted to use PGP is that I already have a PGP key. X.509
> certificates are far too complicated (a certificate authority is a
> useless extra step in my case).
I prefer to allow self-signed certificates approved by fingerprint,
rather than content - having a central authority vouche for a person's
right to use my system does not appeal to me. Yes, this does make
X.509 far too complicated. I have a tendency to put garbage in the
X.509 fields, and use only the private key / public key / fingerprint
of public certificate, which would match your use of PGP keys... :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not