This makes sense to me too! The simple way would break backwards compatibility. But this could be avoided if hash function first checks to see if a schema file exists WITH the password, and returns that, else returns a hash w/o the password.
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:17:02 AM UTC-7, Chris wrote: > > > (2) I wonder if a change to the current behavior would be better -- > change the logic to build a hash using all of the URI except the password > part? Changing server or DB name feels like a real change to me; and in > general changing just the user ID is too since the user may have different > permissions, views etc. in the same database. But changing just the > password? Should not change the underlying identity of the database > connection or database object definitions. (In my view of the world.) > What do you think? > --
