| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RADIUS tests and improvements |
| Date: | 2023-01-03 21:18:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGL9WEuTLKS-i84JW_3JyETHrHQE9ag5BDKVOhkjE9P+=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:03 AM Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
> On 1/3/23 04:11, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > [...] While adding
> > the GUC I couldn't help wondering why RADIUS even needs a timeout
> > separate from authentication_timeout; another way to go here would be
> > to remove it completely, but that'd be a policy change (removing the 3
> > second timeout we always had). Thoughts?
>
> It was some time since I last looked at the code but my impression was
> that the reason for having a separate timeout is that you can try the
> next server after the first one timed out (multiple radius servers are
> allowed). But I wonder if that really is a useful feature or if someone
> just was too clever or it just was an accidental feature.
Ah! Thanks, now that makes sense.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2023-01-03 21:21:13 | Re: RADIUS tests and improvements |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-01-03 21:16:11 | Re: RADIUS tests and improvements |