> > IMO, forcing su password at initdb time (allowing blank 
> password with 
> > a very stern warning) and bumping localhost to auth is the 
> right way 
> > to go.
> 
> This isn't happening for a number of reasons, the most 
> obvious being that we cannot require initdb to be run 
> interactively.  (That stern warning will not impress /dev/null.)

This is the very reason --pwfile was added. It's not just a win32 fix,
it's a "any packager that needs to run without interactivity" fix. Yes,
you can stick a blank password in there, but again, this is a choice and
not a default in that case.

//Magnus

Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:47:20 +0200
"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>
Re: Is "trust" really a good default? 
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> This is the very reason --pwfile was added. It's not just a win32
> fix, it's a "any packager that needs to run without interactivity"
> fix. Yes, you can stick a blank password in there, but again, this is
> a choice and not a default in that case.

No, that's not what it was added for.  It was added for catering to 
packaging mechanisms that have other interfaces for interactivity.  But 
just hardcoding a default password into a package gains no security at 
all.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:33:02 +0200
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Is "trust" really a good default?
"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
>> This isn't happening for a number of reasons, the most 
>> obvious being that we cannot require initdb to be run 
>> interactively.  (That stern warning will not impress /dev/null.)

> This is the very reason --pwfile was added.

No, that does not address the objection in the least.  That simply
allows a level of indirection.  There still has to be user interaction
going on somewhere to supply the password.

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:07:27 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Is "trust" really a good default? 