| From: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | VASUKI M <vasukianand0119(at)gmail(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 18:28:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4CZFPvjAt+eZJd=Rxp=yXRjva8CpJ_BbnF=vQW6uXCqfrjEg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Might be more reason to look into the GUC system?
I am already thinking about that, I have some ideas for a proof of
concept, but no working prototype yet. But without requiring
shared_preload_libraries, we can't do early error reporting during
postmaster startup about custom parameters. Is that okay? GUCs already
work this way, and this could be a bit safer (reporting unknown
parameters/refusing to proceed during login, when we can completely
parse all parameters), but it would be different compared to how
pg_hba is handled currently.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2025-12-18 18:30:57 | Re: Inval reliability, especially for inplace updates |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-12-18 18:22:48 | Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream |