|From:||"Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|To:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Cc:||Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: change password_encryption default to scram-sha-256?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 4/8/19 8:19 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-04-08 13:52, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Yeah, if we're not going to do it now we should announce that we will
>> do it in the next release.
> Targeting PG13 seems reasonable.
Counter-argument: SCRAM has been available for 2 years since 10 feature
freeze, there has been a lot of time already given to implement support
for it. Given is at least 5 months until PG12 comes out, and each of the
popular drivers already has patches in place, we could default it for 12
and let them know this is a reality.
Given it's superior to the existing methods, it'd be better to encourage
the drivers to get this in place sooner. Given what I know about md5,
I've tried to avoid building apps with drivers that don't support SCRAM.
That said, that would be an aggressive approach, so I would not object
to changing the default for PG13 and giving 17 months vs. 5, but we do
let md5 persist that much longer.
|Next Message||Jonathan S. Katz||2019-04-08 12:41:04||Re: initdb recommendations|
|Previous Message||Heikki Linnakangas||2019-04-08 12:34:46||Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take|