Re: On login trigger: take three

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ivan Panchenko <wao(at)mail(dot)ru>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: On login trigger: take three
Date: 2023-03-22 19:38:09
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 22 Mar 2023, at 18:54, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Basically, I think 0001 is a good idea -- I'm much more nervous about
> 0002. I think we should get 0001 polished up and committed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you commented on v27-0001 of the login
event trigger patch series? Sorry about the confusion if so, this is a very
old and lengthy thread with many twists and turns. This series was closed
downthread when the original authors of login EVT left, and the 0001 GUC patch
extracted into its own thread. That patch now lives at:

This thread was then later revived by Mikhail Gribkov but without 0001 instead
referring to the above patch for that part.

The new patch for 0001 is quite different, and I welcome your eyes on that
since I agree with you that it would be a good idea.

Daniel Gustafsson

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-03-22 19:52:29 Re: Can we avoid chdir'ing in resolve_symlinks() ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-03-22 19:27:01 Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam()