| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: password_encryption default |
| Date: | 2020-05-29 13:34:52 |
| Message-ID: | 10018.1590759292@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org) wrote:
>> By that logic, I would +1 removing ENCRYPTED & UNENCRYPTED, given
>> ENCRYPTED effectively has no meaning either after all this time too.
>> Perhaps a stepping stone is to emit a deprecation warning on PG14 and
>> remove in PG15, but I think it's safe to remove.
> We're terrible about that, and people reasonably complain about such
> things because we don't *know* we're gonna remove it in 15.
If we're changing associated defaults, there's already some risk of
breaking badly-written applications. +1 for just removing these
keywords in v14.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2020-05-29 13:37:03 | Re: Make the qual cost on index Filter slightly higher than qual cost on index Cond. |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2020-05-29 13:23:40 | Re: password_encryption default |