Andy Grimm escribió:
> Sorry that it's been a couple of weeks, but I have gotten around to
> working on a patch that address more of these concerns. The attached
> patch should
>
> 1) allow arbitrary length passwords to be read from a file via initdb --pwfile
> 2) allow the client to accept a pa
On 15.02.2012 07:09, Andy Grimm wrote:
Sorry that it's been a couple of weeks, but I have gotten around to
working on a patch that address more of these concerns. The attached
patch should
1) allow arbitrary length passwords to be read from a file via initdb --pwfile
2) allow the client to acce
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun ago 27 12:12:25 -0400 2012:
>>
>> Did we want this patch applied? Not enough demand?
>
> I think it should be in the next commitfest for discussion. I don't see
> any reason to reject it. I t
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:47:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira writes:
> > I don't see it as a bug but a limitation. Why do you need such a long
> > password?
>
> Yeah, I think the reason we're not too consistent about this is that
> nobody ever imagined that limits of 100
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Did we want this patch applied? Not enough demand?
It seems a bit overengineered at this point. I realize Andy wasn't the
one pushing to support arbitrary-length passwords originally, but I
can't see adding this much code for that. I don't even see the value
of allowin
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of lun ago 27 12:12:25 -0400 2012:
>
> Did we want this patch applied? Not enough demand?
I think it should be in the next commitfest for discussion. I don't see
any reason to reject it. I think it needs some fixes, though, so a
formal review process is c
Did we want this patch applied? Not enough demand?
---
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09:12AM -0500, Andy Grimm wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
> wrote:
> > On 28-01-2012 18:55, Andy Grimm
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
wrote:
> On 28-01-2012 18:55, Andy Grimm wrote:
>> It's not uniform between the client and the server, though.
>>
> The server doesn't impose a hard limit for password length and AFAICS it
> should not because we aim for backward compatibi
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Andy Grimm's message of sáb ene 28 14:32:24 -0300 2012:
>
>> Perhaps I should just submit the patch to pgsql-hackers ? I'm new to
>> the pgsql bug interaction process, so my apologies if filing a bug was
>> not the appropria
Excerpts from Andy Grimm's message of sáb ene 28 14:32:24 -0300 2012:
> Perhaps I should just submit the patch to pgsql-hackers ? I'm new to
> the pgsql bug interaction process, so my apologies if filing a bug was
> not the appropriate way to present the issue. I get Internal Server
> Error mes
On 28-01-2012 18:55, Andy Grimm wrote:
> It's not uniform between the client and the server, though.
>
The server doesn't impose a hard limit for password length and AFAICS it
should not because we aim for backward compatibility.
> It sounds like you are suggesting
> that rather than increase the
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
wrote:
> On 28-01-2012 14:32, Andy Grimm wrote:
>> IMHO, there is a subtle difference here. If psql raised an error
>> message on passwords exceeding 100 characters, I would understand your
>> perspective, but I think that simply truncati
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Euler Taveira de Oliveira
wrote:
> On 27-01-2012 23:15, agr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> When psql prompts for a password, it only reads the first 100 characters of
>> the password. The limit in fe-connect.c (for when .pgpass is used) is
>> weirder, a seemingly arbitra
On 28-01-2012 14:32, Andy Grimm wrote:
> IMHO, there is a subtle difference here. If psql raised an error
> message on passwords exceeding 100 characters, I would understand your
> perspective, but I think that simply truncating the password and
> continuing on is a bug. I also think that hard-co
Euler Taveira de Oliveira writes:
> I don't see it as a bug but a limitation. Why do you need such a long
> password?
Yeah, I think the reason we're not too consistent about this is that
nobody ever imagined that limits of 100 bytes or more would pose an
issue in practice. What's the use-case fo
On 27-01-2012 23:15, agr...@gmail.com wrote:
> When psql prompts for a password, it only reads the first 100 characters of
> the password. The limit in fe-connect.c (for when .pgpass is used) is
> weirder, a seemingly arbitrary 320 bytes for all fields combined. Other
> (postgresql-jdbc, PyGreSQL
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 6412
Logged by: Andy Grimm
Email address: agr...@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.1.2
Operating system: Linux (Fedora)
Description:
When psql prompts for a password, it only reads the first 100 characters
17 matches
Mail list logo
