| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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 21:23:00 |
| Message-ID: | 5264b0bd-cf04-1ccb-aafb-a2db64e7b6ba@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/22/20 5:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> writes:
>> On 5/22/20 9:09 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>> As someone who is an unabashed SCRAM fan and was hoping the default
>>> would be up'd for v13, I would actually +1 making it the default in v14,
>>> i.e. because 9.5 will be EOL at that point, and as such we both have
>>> every* driver supporting SCRAM AND every version of PostgreSQL
>>> supporting SCRAM.
>
>> Wasn't SCRAM introduced in 10?
>
> Yeah. But there's still something to Jonathan's argument, because 9.6
> will go EOL in November 2021, which is pretty close to when v14 will
> reach public release (assuming we can hold to the typical schedule).
> If we do it in v13, there'll be a full year where still-supported
> versions of PG can't do SCRAM, implying that clients would likely
> fail to connect to an up-to-date server.
^ that's what I meant.
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-05-22 23:32:57 | Re: segmentation fault using currtid and partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-05-22 21:21:43 | Re: password_encryption default |