Re: change password_encryption default to scram-sha-256?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: change password_encryption default to scram-sha-256?
Date: 2019-04-08 05:42:25
Message-ID: 20190408054225.qvttimputeiiyd6z@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-04-08 01:34:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > From what I can see, the major drivers not using directly libpq
> > support our SASL protocol: JDBC and npgsql. However I can count three
> > of them which still don't support it: Crystal, pq (Go) and asyncpg.
> > pq and asyncpg are very popular on github, with at least 3000 stars
> > each, which is a lot I think. I have also double-checked their source
> > code and I am seeing no trace of SASL or SCRAM, so it seems to me that
> > we may want to wait more before switching the default.
>
> Perhaps we could reach out to the authors of those libraries,
> and encourage them to provide support in the next year or so?

Seems go/pq might get it soon-ish: https://github.com/lib/pq/pull/833

There doesn't appear to be much movement on the crystal front (
https://github.com/will/crystal-pg/issues/154 ), but I don't think it's
popular enough to really worry. There's an issue for asyncpg
https://github.com/MagicStack/asyncpg/issues/314 - but not too much
movement either.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-04-08 05:53:02 Re: Assert failure when validating foreign keys
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-04-08 05:34:42 Re: change password_encryption default to scram-sha-256?