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.
> ... But I can also buy the argument that none of this is a strong
> enough reason to avoid making the error message nicer...
There's that, and there's also the fact that if you assume someone is
using $sufficiently-long-passwords then we might have broken their
use-case already. We can't have much of a conversation here without
a concrete case to look at.
regards, tom lane
