Re: SCRAM salt length

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SCRAM salt length
Date: 2017-08-17 13:04:13
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoaoz=tc9mX4553uQZddzLTwUMNM9zCw9w7BQo2hUBhEtg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In the initial discussions there was as well a mention about using 16 bytes.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/507550BD.2030401@vmware.com
> As we are using SCRAM-SHA-256, let's bump it up and be consistent.
> That's now or never.

This was discussed and changed once before at
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/df8c6e27-4d8e-5281-96e5-131a4e638fc8@8kdata.com

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2017-08-17 13:21:43 Re: SCRAM salt length
Previous Message Thom Brown 2017-08-17 12:49:32 Re: Adding support for Default partition in partitioning