| From: | Ajit Awekar <ajitpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Periodic authorization expiration checks using GoAway message |
| Date: | 2025-12-17 10:06:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAER375PhPdkcapQBUx4kHw82KS1LtTfBgvZ_EpOYqK0n1s5Gpw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Background process will help us to gain performance so as it will be
seamless to users and user queries will not be impacted.
Thanks & Best Regards,
Ajit
On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 at 01:52, Jacob Champion <
jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 1:15 AM Ajit Awekar <ajitpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > >What I meant that we can already implement a background process that
> > >watches active (oauth) connections, and either:
> >
> > >Revalidates tokens periodically using introspection APIs
> >
> > +1 as this will offload validation logic to a dedicated background
> process.
>
> Is the hope that batching validation will make things more efficient,
> or is there another goal to using a background process? You still have
> to communicate back to each backend.
>
> --Jacob
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2025-12-17 10:07:09 | Re: [Proposal] Adding Log File Capability to pg_createsubscriber |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-12-17 10:03:28 | Re: More const-marking cleanup |