Re: Custom oauth validator options

From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
To: VASUKI M <vasukianand0119(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, myon(at)debian(dot)org
Subject: Re: Custom oauth validator options
Date: 2025-12-18 09:08:10
Message-ID: CAN4CZFN9RMF_79kx75SkQZezd91DocUzz89bJeBJrMO=uNuG2w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Personally I would go with either (a) or (c), and I was planning to
> clean up / improve / share my (c) patch as a second attempt for this
> thread, if it didn't receive any replies. I can still do that, so that
> we have multiple test implementations.

I attached the patch. It modifies one of the existing oauth_validator
tests to showcase how it works, but in theory it isn't dependent on
oauth. It however requires shared_preload_libraries (that is common
for all options), maybe oauth_validator_libraries could imply that?

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Adding-hooks-to-HBA-parsing-option-c.patch application/octet-stream 9.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2025-12-18 09:09:15 Re: Parallel Apply
Previous Message Kirill Reshke 2025-12-18 08:55:46 Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access)