Re: Increase psql's password buffer size

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Increase psql's password buffer size
Date: 2020-02-19 20:48:36
Message-ID: 9162.1582145316@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> writes:
> 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?

I can't get excited about this in the least. For any "normal" use of
passwords, 100 bytes is surely far more than sufficient. Furthermore,
if there is someone out there for whom it isn't sufficient, they're not
going to want to build custom versions of Postgres to change it.

If we think that longer passwords are actually a thing to be concerned
about, then what we need to do is change all these places to support
expansible buffers. I'm not taking a position on whether that's worth
the trouble ... but I do take the position that just inserting a
#define is a waste of time.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-02-19 20:55:38 Re: Delaying/avoiding BTreeTupleGetNAtts() call within _bt_compare()
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2020-02-19 20:38:21 Re: error context for vacuum to include block number