Re: Custom oauth validator options

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(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: 2026-01-16 17:52:11
Message-ID: CAOYmi+kVCWCbf+yjmFSeddmqxgYTO5vU+CqwFq6EbpyLkpW=Bw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 9:14 AM Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> wrote:
> * A hba line can be completely generic, which should be above DATABASE
> (ALTER DATABASE setting should override HBA setting, as it is more
> specific)

I think settings in the database should override the ones from the
HBA, yes. So that would put PGC_S_HBA right between, what, _ARGV and
_GLOBAL?

> The first choice seems more logical to me, as that's how pg_hba is
> usually used, but I thought this could still be confusing.

I agree it could be, but is it any more confusing than if you were to
set work_mem in postgresql.conf today, and then `ALTER ROLE ALL SET
work_mem` to something completely different?

Usability improvements for that should be made GUC-wide, I think, and
not influence the chosen order of operations for this feature (as long
as there are no new security concerns). I don't want any project
veterans, whether DBAs or maintainers, to be surprised by how a new
GUC context behaves.

--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2026-01-16 18:03:47 Re: Parallel CREATE INDEX for GIN indexes
Previous Message Zsolt Parragi 2026-01-16 17:13:52 Re: Custom oauth validator options