Re: [oauth] Split and extend PGOAUTHDEBUG

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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