| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, Ajit Awekar <ajitpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Periodic authorization expiration checks using GoAway message |
| Date: | 2025-12-15 17:31:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+m83X25ofDZLM6hgO50w_SR90_aXfQ2C=00ZCdNgNi3ww@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 9:28 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> To clarify: I meant the timeout as a backstop in this flow. Once the
> client receives a 'R' message it should be re-authenticating ASAP. But
> if it still had some messages in flight, the server can still choose
> to process them during a grace period.
But it seems iffy to change authentication metadata associated with
the connection halfway through a transaction, no? Am I missing
something that makes that architecturally safe?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-12-15 17:48:25 | Re: relfilenode statistics |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2025-12-15 17:27:59 | Re: Periodic authorization expiration checks using GoAway message |