On 5/22/20 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: >> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.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?
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. (Would I personally love to do it sooner? Yes...but I think the stars align for doing it in v14). Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
