Re: Should rolpassword be toastable? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jacob Champion
Subject Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?
Date
Msg-id CAOYmi+mVJDy+ja1Un3PSZHq2G4PYq1A-ROfR-rSoOtN-PVK4XA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> > I don't mind proceeding with the patch if there is strong support for it.
> > I wavered only because it's hard to be confident that we are choosing the
> > right limit.
>
> I'm not that fussed about it; surely 256 is more than anyone is using?
> If not, we'll get push-back and then we can have a discussion about the
> correct limit that's informed by more than guesswork.

+1.

Next up is probably SCRAM-SHA-512, which should still have smaller
entries than that -- 222 bytes, I think, with 128-bit salts and a
5-digit iteration count?

--Jacob



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUG FIX]Connection fails with whitespace after keepalives parameter value