Re: BUG #6412: psql & fe-connect truncate passwords

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: agrimm(at)gmail(dot)com, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #6412: psql & fe-connect truncate passwords
Date: 2012-08-27 17:15:34
Message-ID: 20120827171534.GO11088@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:47:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't see it as a bug but a limitation. Why do you need such a long
> > password?
>
> Yeah, I think the reason we're not too consistent about this is that
> nobody ever imagined that limits of 100 bytes or more would pose an
> issue in practice. What's the use-case for passwords longer than
> that?

Thanks for all the feedback. I know it is a pain for me to re-ask these
questions, but it allows us to know that these issues have gotten
sufficient thought.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-08-27 19:31:08 Re: BUG #7507: pg_restore silently fails when restoring a db with the --create flag and no user.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-08-27 16:39:02 Re: BUG #6412: psql & fe-connect truncate passwords