Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Ivan Kush <ivan(dot)kush(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
Date: 2025-05-01 20:41:30
Message-ID: CAOYmi+=z50HoE+YD7nYyBKDe-LzLR1ufDE+z8u+WfpJPfbgT-Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 9:57 AM Jacob Champion
<jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> So to recap: I'm happy to add a Google compatibility mode, but I'd
> like to gather some evidence that their device flow can actually
> authorize tokens for third parties safely, before we commit to that.
> Thoughts?

Hi Ivan, I know the thread has been deep in discussion around the
module split, but I was wondering if you'd had any thoughts on the
Google safety problem?

--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sami Imseih 2025-05-01 20:57:16 Re: queryId constant squashing does not support prepared statements
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-05-01 20:31:53 Re: fixing CREATEROLE