Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 08:13:06 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
	Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Subject: Re: initdb recommendations
Message-ID: <20190524121306.GS2480@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <bec17f0a-ddb1-8b95-5e69-368d9d0a3390@postgresql.org>
 <f27d3170-76cf-4afb-1e1a-b1059295ec8d@2ndquadrant.com>
 <CABUevExMizVYea9zaHBte66u9KipEgfwcsaE9spfqK9iYRST_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190406180839.GA1921989@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <96389374-9454-d26d-6f79-7c7b15ec14bd@2ndquadrant.com>
 <81b36e8b-e27b-ab5d-c4f0-6493771bc0ee@postgresql.org>
 <9f46f065-ca80-f637-8c5d-a9877bcd5eab@postgresql.org>
 <10093.1558664907@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190524023009.GL2480@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <df011ad3-f1a3-149e-3489-2d68e6ea21a7@joeconway.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qXPE+6hUsFlDAc0e"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <df011ad3-f1a3-149e-3489-2d68e6ea21a7@joeconway.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--qXPE+6hUsFlDAc0e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Joe Conway (mail@joeconway.com) wrote:
> On 5/23/19 10:30 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
> >> > For now I have left in the password based method to be scram-sha-256=
 as
> >> > I am optimistic about the support across client drivers[1] (and FWIW=
 I
> >> > have an implementation for crystal-pg ~60% done).
> >>=20
> >> > However, this probably means we would need to set the default passwo=
rd
> >> > encryption guc to "scram-sha-256" which we're not ready to do yet, s=
o it
> >> > may be moot to leave it in.
> >>=20
> >> > So, thinking out loud about that, we should probably use "md5" and o=
nce
> >> > we decide to make the encryption method "scram-sha-256" by default, =
then
> >> > we update the recommendation?
> >>=20
> >> Meh.  If we're going to break things, let's break them.  Set it to
> >> scram by default and let people who need to cope with old clients
> >> change the default.  I'm tired of explaining that MD5 isn't actually
> >> insecure in our usage ...
> >=20
> > +many.
>=20
> many++
>=20
> Are we doing this for pg12? In any case, I would think we better loudly
> point out this change somewhere.

Sure, we should point it out, but I don't know that it needs to be
screamed from the rooftops considering the packagers have already been
largely ignoring our defaults here anyway...

Thanks,

Stephen

--qXPE+6hUsFlDAc0e
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=Ybq3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qXPE+6hUsFlDAc0e--