| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: password_encryption default |
| Date: | 2020-05-22 21:21:43 |
| Message-ID: | 10329.1590182503@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> writes:
> On 5/22/20 9:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> As someone who is an unabashed SCRAM fan and was hoping the default
>> would be up'd for v13, I would actually +1 making it the default in v14,
>> i.e. because 9.5 will be EOL at that point, and as such we both have
>> every* driver supporting SCRAM AND every version of PostgreSQL
>> supporting SCRAM.
> Wasn't SCRAM introduced in 10?
Yeah. But there's still something to Jonathan's argument, because 9.6
will go EOL in November 2021, which is pretty close to when v14 will
reach public release (assuming we can hold to the typical schedule).
If we do it in v13, there'll be a full year where still-supported
versions of PG can't do SCRAM, implying that clients would likely
fail to connect to an up-to-date server.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2020-05-22 21:23:00 | Re: password_encryption default |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-05-22 20:40:17 | Re: xid wraparound danger due to INDEX_CLEANUP false |