Re: Raising the SCRAM iteration count

> 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