| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com" <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Maximum password length |
| Date: | 2020-09-03 21:36:02 |
| Message-ID: | 792439.1599168962@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> writes:
> On 9/3/20, 2:14 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If you insist, I'll change it, but it seems even less likely to ever
>> matter to anybody than the changes to make simple_prompt accept
>> indefinitely long passwords. (Perhaps a reasonable compromise
>> is to extend this comment to note that we're also not bothering
>> to support indefinitely long passwords.)
> I don't feel strongly about this. A comment in the code seems
> reasonable.
Alvaro proposes nearby that we ought to have a src/common/ function
to slurp an indefinitely long line from a file [1]. If we do that,
it'd be entirely reasonable to make this code use that. So maybe
the right comment is "XXX FIXME later".
regards, tom lane
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200903200842.GA11952%40alvherre.pgsql
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2020-09-03 21:39:55 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-03 21:31:31 | Re: report expected contrecord size |