Re: Design Considerations for New Authentication Methods

From: "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Design Considerations for New Authentication Methods
Date: 2006-11-01 06:58:08
Message-ID: 1EDC85D1-8322-4A4D-9A96-E5B0889741ED@jpl.nasa.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Oct 31, 2006, at 8:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Henry B. Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov> writes:
>> I notice that all the
>> authentication (pg_fe_sendauth()) is done inside PWConnectPoll(),
>> which sounds like something that isn't expected to block on network
>> access.
>
> That's right.
>
>> Is this behavior important during startup?
>
> You needn't bother to submit a patch that breaks it ;-).

In other words I can't do the easy thing. OK.

> But I don't
> really see that it's such a big deal. You just need some state
> data to
> keep track of what to do the next time you receive a message. There's
> no assumption anywhere that authentication only involves one message
> exchange.

In a sense you're right. The API's are designed to support that.
Means I need to some more cases to the huge switch statement inside
PWConnectPoll() though.

>> I haven't looked at the corresponding logic on the server side, but
>> I'd assume that it forks before we get to this point so it doesn't
>> matter.
>
> Correct, we don't need to worry about multitasking apps there.
>
> regards, tom lane

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
Henry(dot)B(dot)Hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov, or hbhotz(at)oxy(dot)edu

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tomas 2006-11-01 09:50:47 Re: [HACKERS] Index greater than 8k
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-11-01 06:38:25 Re: [HACKERS] Case Preservation disregarding case