Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 05/06/2017 01:56 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>> On 06/05/17 22:44, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2017 02:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
+This option is obsolete but still accepted for backwards
+compatibility.
Isn't that incorrect Englis
On 05/05/2017 03:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
+This option is obsolete but still accepted for backwards
+compatibility.
Isn't that incorrect English? It seems to me that this be non-plural,
as "for backward compatibility".
I changed most cases to "backward compatibility", excep
On 05/06/2017 01:56 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
On 06/05/17 22:44, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 05/05/2017 02:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
+This option is obsolete but still accepted for backwards
+compatibility.
Isn't that incorrect English?
No.
It seems to me that this be non-plural,
On 06/05/17 22:44, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 05/05/2017 02:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
+This option is obsolete but still accepted for backwards
+compatibility.
Isn't that incorrect English?
No.
It seems to me that this be non-plural,
as "for backward compatibility".
"Backwards
On 05/05/2017 02:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> +This option is obsolete but still accepted for backwards
> +compatibility.
> Isn't that incorrect English?
No.
> It seems to me that this be non-plural,
> as "for backward compatibility".
"Backwards" is not plural, it's a regional
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05/03/2017 08:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> The other question I can think to ask is what will happen during
>> pg_upgrade, given an existing installation with one or more passwords
>> stored plain. If the answer is "silently convert t
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Albe Laurenz
wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> >>> So, I propose that we remove support for password_encryption='plain' in
> >>> PostgreSQL 10. If you try to do that, you'll get an
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> So, I propose that we remove support for password_encryption='plain' in
>>> PostgreSQL 10. If you try to do that, you'll get an error.
>> I have no idea how widely used that option is.
> Is it
On 05/03/2017 08:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
The other question I can think to ask is what will happen during
pg_upgrade, given an existing installation with one or more passwords
stored plain. If the answer is "silently convert to MD5", I'd be
good with that.
Yes, it will silently convert to MD5.
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Magnus Hagander
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> > wrote:
>> >> In various threads on SCRAM, we've skir
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> > In various threads on SCRAM, we've skirted around the question of
> whether we
> > should still allow storing passwords in plaintext. I've avoided
> discussing
> > that in those o
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 05/03/2017 07:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is it possible that there are still client libraries that don't support
>> password encryption at all? If so, are we willing to break them?
>> I'd say "yes" but it's worth thinking about.
> That doesn't make sense. The clien
On 05/03/2017 07:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
So, I propose that we remove support for password_encryption='plain' in
PostgreSQL 10. If you try to do that, you'll get an error.
I have no idea how widely used that optio
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> So, I propose that we remove support for password_encryption='plain' in
>> PostgreSQL 10. If you try to do that, you'll get an error.
> I have no idea how widely used that option is.
Is it possible that there are
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> In various threads on SCRAM, we've skirted around the question of whether we
> should still allow storing passwords in plaintext. I've avoided discussing
> that in those other threads, because it's been an orthogonal question, but
> it's
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> >> In various threads on SCRAM, we've skirted around the question of
> whether
> >> we should still allow storing p
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> In various threads on SCRAM, we've skirted around the question of whether
>> we should still allow storing passwords in plaintext. I've avoided
>> discussing that in those other t
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In various threads on SCRAM, we've skirted around the question of whether
> we should still allow storing passwords in plaintext. I've avoided
> discussing that in those other threads, because it's been an orthogonal
> question,
Hi,
In various threads on SCRAM, we've skirted around the question of
whether we should still allow storing passwords in plaintext. I've
avoided discussing that in those other threads, because it's been an
orthogonal question, but it's a good question and we should discuss it.
So, I propose
19 matches
Mail list logo
