| From: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com" <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers |
| Date: | 2022-08-02 21:57:38 |
| Message-ID: | 3b678314-054a-6119-b373-4574067f404e@timescale.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/22/22 06:31, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> FWIW, I just created a new thread to expose the port->authn_id through
> the SYSTEM_USER sql reserved word.
Review for both seems to have dried up a bit. I'm not particularly
invested in my code, but I do want to see *a* solution go in. So if it
helps the review momentum for me to withdraw this patch and put my
effort into SYSTEM_USER, I can do that no problem.
Thoughts from prior reviewers? Is SYSTEM_USER the way to go?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-08-02 22:04:16 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-08-02 21:48:49 | Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates |