| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Euler Taveira <euler(dot)taveira(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_stat_activity: make slow/hanging authentication more visible |
| Date: | 2025-03-13 16:23:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+kDb9pgoLm58E0HrmFRNkaJGiquyBkRMX5TBhRQomnL3A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 3:16 PM Jacob Champion
<jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I missed PAM_CONV, sorry. I'm worried about the sendAuthRequest()
> being done there; it doesn't seem safe to potentially ereport(ERROR)
> and longjmp through a PAM call stack? But I'll switch those over to
> something safe or else drop that part of the patch.
PAM aside... Michael, what's your level of enthusiasm for the rest of
this patch? I was confidently, embarrassingly wrong about how
CheckPAMAuth worked, and it makes me think I need to put this down and
take a completely new crack at it in 19.
Thanks,
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-03-13 16:26:47 | Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-03-13 16:23:08 | Re: [PATCH] Add reverse(bytea) |