Re: password_encryption default

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: 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 15:34:21
Message-ID: 28673.1590161661@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:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> As far as that last goes, we *did* get the buildfarm fixed to be all
>> v11 scripts, so I thought we were ready to move forward on trying
>> 09f08930f again. It's too late to consider that for v13, but
>> perhaps it'd be reasonable to change the SCRAM default now? Not sure.

> I feel like it is. I'm not even sure that I agree that it's really too
> late to consider 09f08930f considering that's it's a pretty minor code
> change and the up-side to that is having reasonable defaults out of the
> box, as it were, something we have *long* been derided for.

Well, the argument against changing right now is that it would invalidate
portability testing done against beta1, which users would be justifiably
upset about.

I'm +1 for changing both of these things as soon as we branch for v14,
but I feel like it's a bit late for v13. If we aren't feature-frozen
now, when will we be?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2020-05-22 15:44:25 Re: password_encryption default
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2020-05-22 15:14:38 Re: password_encryption default