| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should rolpassword be toastable? |
| Date: | 2024-09-20 14:06:28 |
| Message-ID: | 0d8f3541-13f4-4194-8dca-bae881cf1a9a@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/20/24 1:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 09:46:00PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 07:37:55PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>>> Shouldn't we enforce the limit in every case in encrypt_password,
>>>> not just this one? (I do agree that encrypt_password is an okay
>>>> place to enforce it.)
>>
>> Yeah, that seems like a good idea. I've attached a more fleshed-out patch
>> set that applies the limit in all cases.
>
> Not sure. Is this really something we absolutely need? Sure, this
> generates a better error when inserting a record too long to
> pg_authid, but removing the toast relation is enough to avoid the
> problems one would see when authenticating. Not sure if this argument
> is enough to count as an objection, just sharing some doubts :)
The errors from lack of TOAST are confusing to users. Why can't we have
a user friendly error here?
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-09-20 14:07:41 | Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2024-09-20 14:02:25 | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |