On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 10:00:02PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 09:46:23AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 2:30 AM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > > Between (b)(2)(X) and (b)(3)(X), what are folks' preferences? Does anyone > > > strongly favor some other option (including the option of changing > > > nothing) > > > over both of those two? > > > > I don't think we have any options here that are secure but do not > > break backward compatibility. > > I agree, but compatibility breaks vary in pain caused. I want to offer a > simple exit to a backward-compatible configuration, and I want a $NEW_DEFAULT > pleasing enough that a decent fraction of deployments keep $NEW_DEFAULT (forgo > the exit). The move to default standard_conforming_strings=on is an example > to follow (editing postgresql.conf was the simple exit). > > > I don't know how to choose between (1), (2), and (3). > > One way is to envision deployments you know and think about a couple of > questions in the context of those deployments. If $EACH_OPTION happened, > would this deployment keep $NEW_DEFAULT, override $NEW_DEFAULT to some other > secure configuration, or exit to $v13_DEFAULT? Where the answer is "exit", > would those deployments rate the exit recipe easy, medium, or difficult?
It sounds like you might prefer to wait for better ideas and not change $SUBJECT for now. Is that right?