> On 14 Apr 2023, at 01:14, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:27:17AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Having the function always generate a random salt seems more
>> reasonable though, and would perhaps be something that helps in some
>> of the cases? It won't help with the password policy one, as it's too
>> secure for that, but it would help with the postgres-is-the-client
>> one?
>
> While this is still hot.. Would it make sense to have a
> scram_salt_length GUC to control the length of the salt used when
> generating the SCRAM secret?
What would be the intended usecase? I don’t have the RFC handy, does it say anything about salt length?
./daniel
