On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Would it be worth making password_encryption be GUC_REPORT so that > it could be guaranteed available, without a server transaction, > from any valid connection? I'm generally resistant to adding > GUC_REPORT flags, but maybe this is a time for an exception.
Well, as Heikki just wrote a few messages upthread: --- As an alternative, I considered making password_encryption GUC_REPORT, so that libpq would always know it without having to issue a query. But it feels wrong to send that option to the client on every connection, when it's only needed in the rare case that you use PQencryptPasswordConn(). And if we added new settings like the iteration count in the future, those would need to be GUC_REPORT too. --- I think those are both good points. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
