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.
