On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:12:52AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:42:07PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > I have no strong opinion about the maximum length of password,
> > for now. But IMO it's worth committing that 0001 patch as the first step
> > for this problem.
> >
> > Also IMO the more problematic thing is that psql silently truncates
> > the password specified in the prompt into 99B if its length is
> > more than 99B. I think that psql should emit a warning in this case
> > so that users can notice that.
>
> I think we should be using a macro to define the maximum length, rather
> than have 100 used in various places.
It's not just 100 in some places. It's different in different places,
which goes to your point.
How about using a system that doesn't meaningfully impose a maximum
length? The shell variable is a const char *, so why not just
re(p)alloc as needed?
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
