On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 2:38 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jk...@postgresql.org> wrote:
> 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. > Yeah, that would be fairly consistent with how we usually do htings 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. > You can't really count feature freeze, you have to count release I think. And basically we're saying they had 2 years. Which in itself would've been perfectly reasonable, *if we told them*. But we didn't. I think the real question is, is it OK to give them basically 5months warning, by right now saying if you don't have a release out in 6 months, things will break. 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. > I think we definitely should not make it *later* than 13. Maybe we should simply reach out to those driver developers, it's not that many of them after all, and *ask* if they would think it's a problem if we change it in 12. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
