Re: [PATCH] Add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in scram_SaltedPassword loop.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bowen Shi <zxwsbg12138(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in scram_SaltedPassword loop.
Date: 2023-11-27 23:39:26
Message-ID: ZWUorvNaPB0BzCK_@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 10:05:49AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I don't see any reason to backpatch further down than 16 given how low the
> hardcoded value is set there, scanning the archives I see no complaints about
> it either. As a reference, CREATE ROLE using 4096 iterations takes 14ms on my
> 10 year old laptop (1M iterations, 244x the default, takes less than a second).

Agreed, so done it this way. \password has the same problem, where we
could perhaps do something with a callback or something like that, or
perhaps that's just not worth bothering.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-11-27 23:45:04 Re: Incorrect comment in tableam.h regarding GetHeapamTableAmRoutine()
Previous Message Jeremy Schneider 2023-11-27 23:35:19 Re: proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch