Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?
Date: 2024-09-19 22:14:34
Message-ID: 2047353.1726784074@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Oh, actually, I see that we are already validating the hash, but you can
> create valid SCRAM-SHA-256 hashes that are really long. So putting an
> arbitrary limit (patch attached) is probably the correct path forward. I'd
> also remove pg_authid's TOAST table while at it.

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.)

I think you will get pushback from a limit of 256 bytes --- I seem
to recall discussion of actual use-cases where people were using
strings of a couple of kB. Whatever the limit is, the error message
had better cite it explicitly.

Also, the ereport call needs an errcode.
ERRCODE_PROGRAM_LIMIT_EXCEEDED is probably suitable.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2024-09-19 22:46:01 Re: Pgoutput not capturing the generated columns
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-09-19 21:52:02 Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?