| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should rolpassword be toastable? |
| Date: | 2024-10-03 22:24:54 |
| Message-ID: | 473657.1727994294@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:
> I don't mind proceeding with the patch if there is strong support for it.
> I wavered only because it's hard to be confident that we are choosing the
> right limit.
I'm not that fussed about it; surely 256 is more than anyone is using?
If not, we'll get push-back and then we can have a discussion about the
correct limit that's informed by more than guesswork.
> ... But I can also buy the argument that none of this is a strong
> enough reason to avoid making the error message nicer...
There's that, and there's also the fact that if you assume someone is
using $sufficiently-long-passwords then we might have broken their
use-case already. We can't have much of a conversation here without
a concrete case to look at.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-10-03 23:29:46 | Re: Should rolpassword be toastable? |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-10-03 22:17:01 | Re: Should rolpassword be toastable? |