On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@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.
+1. Next up is probably SCRAM-SHA-512, which should still have smaller entries than that -- 222 bytes, I think, with 128-bit salts and a 5-digit iteration count? --Jacob
