Re: Improve OAuth discovery logging

From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
To: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: Improve OAuth discovery logging
Date: 2026-02-27 19:51:12
Message-ID: CAN4CZFNscs=hiOkRJYF39r7AD7ef9+MR+O2BQdEtE_2Ajdo5qw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Well, you can do something in a line with

Yes, but I either have to declare was_discovery at the beginning of
the function, or add { ... } for the case and declare it at the
beginning of the case branch. Neither of those seems to be more
readable to me. With different coding conventions I would definitely
do a `const bool was_discovery` directly before the if, but I can't do
that here.

Thanks for the comment suggestions, I attached an updated version with
an edited comment for exchange().

Attachment Content-Type Size
v5-0001-Improve-OAuth-discovery-logging.patch application/octet-stream 8.2 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zsolt Parragi 2026-02-27 20:03:29 Re: [oauth] Bug: when is shutdown_cb called?
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2026-02-27 19:42:52 Re: [oauth] Stabilize the libpq-oauth ABI (and allow alternative implementations?)