On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 10:33:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jonathan S. Katz" <jk...@postgresql.org> writes: >> I think Tom's initial suggestion (BLCKSZ/2) is better than 256, given we >> really don't know what' out there in the wild, and this could end up >> being a breaking change. Every other type in pg_authid is pretty small. > > I'm having second thoughts about that though, based on the argument > that we don't really want a platform-dependent limit here. > Admittedly, nobody changes BLCKSZ on production systems, but it's > still theoretically an issue. I don't have a problem with selecting > a larger limit such as 512 or 1024 though.
Since BLCKSZ can be as low as 1024, I think 512 would be a good choice. > However, if you wanted to allow multiple passwords I'm not > sure about a good way. The most recent proposal I'm aware of [0] did seem to target that use-case. One option might be to move rolpassword to a different catalog. In any case, I don't think it matters much for the patch at hand. [0] https://postgr.es/m/CAGB%2BVh5SQQorNDEKP%2B0G%3DsmxHRhbhs%2BVkmQWD5Vh98fmn8X4dg%40mail.gmail.com -- nathan
