Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 16:27:40 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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?
Message-ID: <Zv8MTMy87pRlRqD_@nathan>
References: <ZuxjAIOJ4GSa34KC@nathan>
 <ZuydAj4nrt4cpGU5@nathan>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zu8r0oO0Vi0FxdpB@nathan>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zv8MTMy87pRlRqD_%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 03:25:54PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing.  I went ahead and committed 0002 since it seems like
> there's consensus on that one.  I've attached a rebased version of 0001
> with s/characters/bytes.

For the reasons discussed upthread [0], I can't bring myself to add an
arbitrary limit to the password hash length.  I am going to leave 0001
uncommitted for now.

[0] https://postgr.es/m/Zu2eT2H8OT3OXauc%40nathan

-- 
nathan