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... :-) Cheers, mark -- [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... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ---------------------------(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 match