On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:12:52AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 02:42:07PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > I have no strong opinion about the maximum length of password, > > for now. But IMO it's worth committing that 0001 patch as the first step > > for this problem. > > > > Also IMO the more problematic thing is that psql silently truncates > > the password specified in the prompt into 99B if its length is > > more than 99B. I think that psql should emit a warning in this case > > so that users can notice that. > > I think we should be using a macro to define the maximum length, rather > than have 100 used in various places.
It's not just 100 in some places. It's different in different places, which goes to your point. How about using a system that doesn't meaningfully impose a maximum length? The shell variable is a const char *, so why not just re(p)alloc as needed? 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
