On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 01:12:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > At least two cloud providers are now stuffing large amounts of
> > information into the password field. This change makes it possible to
> > accommodate that usage in interactive sessions.
>
> Like who?
AWS and Azure are two examples I know of.
> It seems like a completely silly idea. And if 2K is sane, why not
> much more?
Good question. Does it make sense to rearrange these things so they're
allocated at runtime instead of compile time?
> (I can't say that s/100/2048/ in one place is a particularly evil
> change; what bothers me is the likelihood that there are other
> places that won't cope with arbitrarily long passwords. Not all of
> them are necessarily under our control, either.)
I found one that is, so please find attached the next revision of the
patch.
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate