Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 21:27:40
Message-ID: Zv8MTMy87pRlRqD_@nathan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 03:25:54PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing. I went ahead and committed 0002 since it seems like
> there's consensus on that one. I've attached a rebased version of 0001
> with s/characters/bytes.

For the reasons discussed upthread [0], I can't bring myself to add an
arbitrary limit to the password hash length. I am going to leave 0001
uncommitted for now.

[0] https://postgr.es/m/Zu2eT2H8OT3OXauc%40nathan

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-10-03 21:39:06 Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2024-10-03 21:23:33 Re: Make tuple deformation faster