| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Raising the SCRAM iteration count |
| Date: | 2023-02-22 17:21:03 |
| Message-ID: | 86b266bb-5bb3-a18d-0775-8d5a87848cd2@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/22/23 8:39 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 17 Dec 2022, at 04:27, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>>
>> Superuser-only GUCs should be documented as such, or do you intend to
>> make it user-settable like I suggested upthread :) ?
>
> I don't really have strong feelings, so I reverted to being user-settable since
> I can't really present a strong argument for superuser-only.
I was going to present some weak arguments, but not worth it. Anything
around using up CPU cycles would be true of just writing plain old queries.
> The attached is a rebase on top of master with no other additional hacking done
> on top of the above review comments.
Generally LGTM. I read through earlier comments (sorry I missed
replying) and have nothing to add or object to.
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2023-02-22 17:27:19 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-02-22 17:18:34 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |