| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: SET ROLE hook |
| Date: | 2016-03-16 15:28:22 |
| Message-ID: | 56E97B96.6020400@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/6/16 1:17 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2016-03-05 21:49 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com
> <mailto:mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>>:
>
> I still don't see any point in trying to pass data back from the hooks
> as the extension can maintain that state just fine, although it looks
> like it would be pretty trivial to do using a new void* member added to
> role_auth_extra. Tom (or anyone else), any comment on that?
>
> see Tom's comment, I share his opinion.
>
> I do however find myself wishing I could pass the action down from
> set_config_option() to at least the assign_role() hook, but that seems
> more invasive than I'd like.
>
> describe this use case, please.
Joe, it looks there are some unresolved questions from Pavel and Craig
on this thread and probably a new patch is required. Any idea when you
can get to that?
Thanks,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2016-03-16 15:30:04 | Re: Proposal: SET ROLE hook |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-03-16 15:14:44 | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |