Re: ProcessStartupPacket(): database_name and user_name truncation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ProcessStartupPacket(): database_name and user_name truncation
Date: 2023-06-30 15:54:12
Message-ID: 1764457.1688140452@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:
> After taking another look at this, I wonder if it'd be better to fail as
> soon as we see the database or user name is too long instead of lugging
> them around when authentication is destined to fail.

If we're agreed that we aren't going to truncate these identifiers,
that seems like a reasonable way to handle it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Lakhin 2023-06-30 16:00:00 Re: Avoid unused value (src/fe_utils/print.c)
Previous Message David Cook 2023-06-30 15:45:57 [PATCH] pgrowlocks: Make mode names consistent with docs