| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: password_encryption default |
| Date: | 2020-05-29 13:18:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20200529131827.GL6680@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz) wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 02:53:17PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > More along these lines: We could also remove the ENCRYPTED and UNENCRYPTED
> > keywords from CREATE and ALTER ROLE. AFAICT, these have never been emitted
> > by pg_dump or psql, so there are no concerns from that end. Thoughts?
>
> +0.5. I think that you have a good point about the removal of
> UNENCRYPTED (one keyword gone!) as we don't support it since 10. For
> ENCRYPTED, I'd rather keep it around for compatibility reasons for a
> longer time, just to be on the safe side.
It's both inaccurate and would be completely legacy at that point.
I disagree entirely about keeping it around 'for compatibility'.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2020-05-29 13:21:06 | Re: feature idea: use index when checking for NULLs before SET NOT NULL |
| Previous Message | Adrien Nayrat | 2020-05-29 13:13:42 | pg_dump fail to not dump public schema orders |