From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, 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: | 2020-02-19 13:16:09 |
Message-ID: | 6066ec49-4156-c264-165c-5aca73bfb86b@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/01/22 11:01, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/01/22 0:12, 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.
>
> +1 as the first step for this issue. The patch that I mentioned
> upthread actually does that.
Attached is the patch that Nathan proposed at [1] and I think that
it's worth applying. I'd like to add this to next CommitFest.
Thought?
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/09512C4F-8CB9-4021-B455-EF4C4F0D55A0@amazon.com
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v1-0001-Refactor-maximum-password-length-enforced-by-clie.patch | text/plain | 8.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ahsan hadi | 2020-02-19 13:59:21 | Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-02-19 13:04:46 | Re: Parallel copy |