"Dominic J. Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org> writes:
>> Could we change the PAM code so that it tries to run the PAM auth cycle
>> immediately on receipt of a connection request? If it gets a callback
>> for a password, it abandons the PAM conversation, sends off a password
>> request packet, and then tries again when the password comes back.
> I am attempting to do this in a way that's relatively elegant, and the
> code should get sent to -patches tomorrow sometime , after I've had time
> to do some testing.
I think that the main objection to the original form of the PAM patch
was that it would lock up the postmaster until the client responded.
However, that is *not* a concern any longer, since the current code
forks first and authenticates after. Accordingly, you shouldn't be
complexifying the PAM code to avoid waits.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-08-25 04:50:48|
|Subject: Re: Does the oid column have an implicit index on it? |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-08-25 04:33:29|
|Subject: MD5 for ODBC|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Dominic J. Eidson||Date: 2001-08-25 05:16:49|
|Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHES] Patch to include PAM support... |
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2001-08-25 03:08:12|
|Subject: RE: DROP CONSTRAINT (UNIQUE) preliminary support|