Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)

* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnaka@iki.fi) wrote:
> On 12/14/2016 04:57 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >>On 12/14/16 5:15 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >>>I would be tempted to suggest adding the verifier type as a new column
> >>>of pg_authid
> >>
> >>Yes please.
> >
> >This discussion seems to continue to come up and I don't entirely
> >understand why we keep trying to shove more things into pg_authid, or
> >worse, into rolpassword.
> 
> I understand the relational beauty of having a separate column for
> the verifier type, but I don't think it would be practical.

I disagree.

> For
> starters, we'd still like to have a self-identifying string format
> like "scram-sha-256:<stuff>", so that you can conveniently pass the
> verifier as a string to CREATE USER.

I don't follow why we can't change the syntax for CREATE USER to allow
specifying the verifier type independently.  Generally speaking, I don't
expect *users* to be providing actual encoded *verifiers* very often, so
it seems like a bit of extra syntax that pg_dump has to use isn't that
big of a deal.

> I think it'll be much better to
> stick to one format, than try to split the verifier into type and
> the string, when it enters the catalog table.

Apparently, multiple people disagree with this approach.  I don't think
history is really on your side here either.

> >We should have an independent table for the verifiers, which has a
> >different column for the verifier type, and either starts off supporting
> >multiple verifiers per role or at least gives us the ability to add that
> >easily later.  We should also move rolvaliduntil to that new table.
> 
> I agree we'll probably need a new table for verifiers. Or turn
> rolpassword into an array or something. We discussed that before,
> however, and it didn't really go anywhere, so right now I'd like to
> get SCRAM in with minimal changes to the rest of the system. There
> is a lot of room for improvement once it's in.

Using an array strikes me as an absolutely terrible idea- how are you
going to handle having different valid_until times then?

I do agree with trying to get SCRAM in without changing too much of the
rest of the system, but I wanted to make it clear that it's the only
point that I agree with for continuing down this path and that we should
absolutely be looking to change the CREATE USER syntax to specify the
verifier independently, plan to use a different table for the verifiers
with an independent column for the verifier type, support multiple
verifiers per role, etc, in the (hopefully very near...) future.

Thanks!

Stephen