Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane escribi?:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I don't know of a way to make MD5 and db_user_namespace work cleanly so
> > > we are considering removing db_user_namespace in 8.4.
> >
> > We are? It's no more or less ugly than the day it was put in (the
> > MD5 encryption option was already there).
> >
> > If we had some improved replacement to offer, I'd be all for getting
> > rid of db_user_namespace; but without that I think we're just taking
> > away a feature that some people are using. At least, the argument
> > was made back in 2002 that people would use this if they had it;
> > do we have evidence to the contrary now?
>
> I also disagree with removing it. I know some people (few and far
> apart) are using it.
Well, I posted about this in August with no one replying:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2008-08/msg00068.php
Basically, there is a mismatch between what libpq and the backend think
is the username, and that affects how MD5 uses the salt on the two sides
of the connection. The minimal solution would be to document this and
print a proper error message.
--
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
