| From: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [oauth] Split and extend PGOAUTHDEBUG |
| Date: | 2026-03-31 17:44:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4CZFMKCB2OXPGW0R_hCSu4Gg==B7dBSrv6Mf-YuFcrUncADg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for the review, these changes generally sound good.
> I think `fast-retry` needs to be moved under UNSAFE and renamed to
> something that doesn't sound "good". `dos-interval` maybe?
I would use a different name, for something like `dos-interval` I
would expect to provide a time since it's an interval?
`immediate-retry` maybe? Or `dos-retry`?
> nitpick: `poll-counts` and `print-plugin-errors` choose different
> naming conventions, and we're not referring to the poll() API for the
> former. `call-count`? `dlopen`?
I didn't want to write "print-poll-counts" and "print-trace" as those
are just longer, while simply writing "plugin-errors" without print
also seemed wrong. Maybe it could be "plugin-debug" instead, that
sounds good even withour print?
> I have a sample patch locally for these suggestions, if you'd like.
I can create a patch with these updates tomorrow, but if you already
have it, that might be easier/quicker.
> I'm not a fan of 0002
That's okay, I am fine with dropping that. We are already using that
small custom libpq client for testing, so we can keep using it. I just
thought this could make things easier/clearer to others.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-03-31 17:45:55 | Re: Fixes inconsistent behavior in vacuum when it processes multiple relations |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2026-03-31 17:41:18 | Re: EXPLAIN: showing ReadStream / prefetch stats |