Re: Raising the SCRAM iteration count

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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: 2023-02-23 14:10:05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 22 Feb 2023, at 18:21, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2/22/23 8:39 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:

>> 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.

Thanks for reviewing!

In fixing the CFBot test error in the previous version I realized through
off-list discussion that the GUC name was badly chosen. Incorporating the
value of another GUC in the name is a bad idea, so the attached version reverts
to "scram_iterations=<int>". Should there ever be another SCRAM method
standardized (which seems a slim chance to happen before the v17 freeze) we can
make a backwards compatible change to "<method>:<iterations> | <iterations>"
where the latter is a default for all. Internally the variable contains
sha_256 though, that part I think is fine for readability.

Daniel Gustafsson

Attachment Content-Type Size
v5-0001-Make-SCRAM-iteration-count-configurable.patch application/octet-stream 14.9 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2023-02-23 14:12:21 Re: Reducing connection overhead in pg_upgrade compat check phase
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2023-02-23 13:43:02 Re: pg_rewind race condition just after promotion