From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
        Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?
In-reply-to: <Zv8X3YVzuPfh1Fht@nathan>
References: <2047353.1726784074@sss.pgh.pa.us> <0a9b7f96-aa2f-41eb-8e69-62f7990ebf74@postgresql.org> <Zuzh6Nq750L9BZn5@nathan> <Zu0G7s-k8iECVG7i@paquier.xyz> <0d8f3541-13f4-4194-8dca-bae881cf1a9a@postgresql.org> <Zu2eT2H8OT3OXauc@nathan> <2445149.1726849661@sss.pgh.pa.us> <Zu8r0oO0Vi0FxdpB@nathan> <Zv8MTMy87pRlRqD_@nathan> <465160.1727991546@sss.pgh.pa.us> <Zv8X3YVzuPfh1Fht@nathan>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 03 Oct 2024 17:17:01 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <473656.1727994294.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 18:24:54 -0400
Message-ID: <473657.1727994294@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/473657.1727994294%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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.

> ... But I can also buy the argument that none of this is a strong
> enough reason to avoid making the error message nicer...

There's that, and there's also the fact that if you assume someone is
using $sufficiently-long-passwords then we might have broken their
use-case already.  We can't have much of a conversation here without
a concrete case to look at.

			regards, tom lane