Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:44:32 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Should rolpassword be toastable?
Message-ID: <ZuxjAIOJ4GSa34KC@nathan>
References: <89e8649c-eb74-db25-7945-6d6b23992394@gmail.com>
 <1284094.1695479962@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <67793ae1-3adc-a6e0-0bb3-c23a28c0627a@gmail.com>
 <a9524f94-316c-349a-6e4d-79b878706f82@gmail.com>
 <Zuwzp09o9uiG0f0F@nathan>
 <1986859.1726756275@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1986859.1726756275@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZuxjAIOJ4GSa34KC%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 10:31:15AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
>> Hm.  It does seem like there's little point in giving pg_authid a TOAST
>> table, as rolpassword is the only varlena column, and it obviously has
>> problems.  But wouldn't removing it just trade one unhelpful internal error
>> when trying to log in for another when trying to add a really long password
>> hash (which hopefully nobody is really trying to do in practice)?  I wonder
>> if we could make this a little more user-friendly.
> 
> We could put an arbitrary limit (say, half of BLCKSZ) on the length of
> passwords.

Something like that could be good enough.  I was thinking about actually
validating that the hash had the correct form, but that might be a little
more complex than is warranted here.

-- 
nathan