Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kCoMP-000800-RT for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:16:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kCoMO-0000p0-OQ for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:16:52 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kCoMO-0000os-Gy for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:16:52 +0000 Received: from tamriel.snowman.net ([96.255.250.162]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kCoML-0003g9-Lu for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 18:16:52 +0000 Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4A4185F79F; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:16:48 -0400 From: Stephen Frost To: Tom Lane Cc: Nicholas Chammas , pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Amazon RDS auth tokens in .pgpass Message-ID: <20200831181648.GT29590@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <4119486.1598897040@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CgtXan5liHMhJzJr" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4119486.1598897040@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --CgtXan5liHMhJzJr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings, * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Nicholas Chammas writes: > > It's only the combination of a) .pgpass and b) RDS auth token that does= n't > > work. This leads me to believe something is going wrong on a code path > > specific to .pgpass, or that there are some undocumented restrictions on > > what can go in .pgpass. >=20 > Looking at the source code, there's a hard-wired restriction that lines of > .pgpass can't be more than 320 characters long (well, NAMEDATALEN*5, but > very few builds don't have NAMEDATALEN=3D64). I see that somebody very > recently added code to make libpq print a warning for overlength lines, > but I wonder why they didn't just, um, remove the restriction. We had > not previously heard of a use-case for passwords with hundreds of > characters in them, but I guess we need to cope. My memory might be faulty, but I've got some specific recollection of people complaining about this before and the community response being "who would ever need such very long things?!" In particular, this seems relevant... https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/29496.1539388920%40sss.pgh.pa.us but I'm also inclined to add support for these longer values. Thanks, Stephen --CgtXan5liHMhJzJr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJfTT6PAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVbmkP/2LJ7BWqParGaa6oGRNDUCIk 0cycIdnOjzXZE5soDH0vTDw6lPmGKDAbsQ5pr3/chMswsbhXoctx+CE5KsM82hs6 G5nAfDt/s9I0xeptkpwQsTwQyPs55WPIaBdFIdkYU8sKNWM2HY2wXRPMy7KZu4jK VMYC27Ed/MiaOQyp4heqYpUBEN9tlDPo6hDzixgjmI2S3kI5OxyUVYtKw47f8ctl gT/NdAfT3fuvQFT3gYxncV4/R4Ug032Wkf8SeZ9Uk7rYkFwU1qTzpZmjFfB12ypp QUeuWJPiSUZMjDIg4MXGw/5+m1S7OBNy3qhW/5CIM3apX9UqJT24X14Bz6yNFkKD v5I8iDB4eXguZTzBSAd+RYEMvHbEytpoJxgWCD1Qt6gJlQ5QIYhPV0toYAISDpqJ oNYR0053dV1D6OPToAtdN03Ma8Ru3Ux1v0fZpmsOqluI/HgDbHBXpXGT3/V+FBD3 M1kHZSj/RPBKxacRJr3KUQVWaxaMG8aMm5eBw68MO25luA3K+65UoV6fac7CSDoP sRzMKR1RVGz3p0Mks+8n8C0nNdUiDMCWsdhYkVNyeIB3DiREpqc0+IW//YEL0Y2h zTbablpEmoLD+Dpg6R0TpWlm6dQOEUvZ7VGU7+zNpmpRLzCYQDLMf+G1FTk3lz/U aUAe6Rooh55r9IaDe9a8 =5DqJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CgtXan5liHMhJzJr--