In password security, the longer the better. With a password manager, using more than 24 characters is simple. Unless, of course, the secure password is not accepted due to its length. (In this case, through STOVE.)
Possibly indicating cleartext storage of a limited field (which is an absolute no-go), or suboptimal or lacking security practices.
255 chars + ‘\0’ = 256
Not weird at all.
I see your point, but we have Java backends and strings there are not null terminated. Also I’m very sure that those would never be the reason for our Postgres server to run out of storage so I don’t get it why not make it more user friendly. We’re not implenting an embedded system where every byte of storage counts.
Agree, I was just commenting on why 255 in itself isn’t “weird”. I find myself doing comparisons of the “value == variable” type even in languages where you cannot assign by mistake. Some of us old farts code from muscle memory … :)