Re: Increase psql's password buffer size

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Increase psql's password buffer size
Date: 2020-01-21 15:19:13
Message-ID: 20200121151912.GB32763@fetter.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:12:52AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:42:07PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > I have no strong opinion about the maximum length of password,
> > for now. But IMO it's worth committing that 0001 patch as the first step
> > for this problem.
> >
> > Also IMO the more problematic thing is that psql silently truncates
> > the password specified in the prompt into 99B if its length is
> > more than 99B. I think that psql should emit a warning in this case
> > so that users can notice that.
>
> I think we should be using a macro to define the maximum length, rather
> than have 100 used in various places.

It's not just 100 in some places. It's different in different places,
which goes to your point.

How about using a system that doesn't meaningfully impose a maximum
length? The shell variable is a const char *, so why not just
re(p)alloc as needed?

Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2020-01-21 15:23:59 Re: Increase psql's password buffer size
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2020-01-21 15:12:52 Re: Increase psql's password buffer size