Re: change password_encryption default to scram-sha-256?

On 4/8/19 2:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2019-04-08 13:34:12 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I understand all this talk about deferring changing the
>>> default to pg13.  AFAICS only a few fringe drivers are missing support;
>>> not changing in pg12 means we're going to leave *all* users, even those
>>> whose clients have support, without the additional security for 18 more
>>> months.
>
>> Imo making such changes after feature freeze is somewhat poor
>> form.
>
> Yeah.

Yeah, that's fair.

>
>> If jdbc didn't support scram, it'd be an absolutely clear no-go imo. A
>> pretty large fraction of users use jdbc to access postgres. But it seems
>> to me that support has been merged for a while:
>> https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/1014
>
> "Merged to upstream" is a whole lot different from "readily available in
> the field".  What's the actual status in common Linux distros, for
> example?

Did some limited research just to get a sense.

Well, if it's RHEL7, it's PostgreSQL 9.2 so, unless they're using our
RPM, that definitely does not have it :)

(While researching this, I noticed on the main RHEL8 beta page[1] that
PostgreSQL is actually featured, which is kind of neat. I could not
quickly find which version of the JDBC driver it is shipping with, though)

On Ubuntu, 18.04 LTS ships PG10, but the version of JDBC does not
include SCRAM support. 18.10 ships JDBC w/SCRAM support.

On Debian, stretch is on 9.4. buster has 11 packaged, and JDBC is
shipping with SCRAM support.