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: 2026-01-27 17:40:32
Message-ID: CAOYmi+mS=cpKk_jcuUaJz+noB8Gj=M06e9AdDQYcJRpXDARJYA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 1:51 AM Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> wrote:
> The choosing authentication method part would already
> be useful with OAuth, and now Joel also started a thread about fido2,
> which also brings the question of MFA.

Or just the ability to offer a choice between two authentication
methods for a single user, yeah.

> pg_hba has the same issue, even if it has custom key=value data
> already. What I meant is similarly how we could turn currently hard
> coded pg_hba settings into GUC variables, the same is doable with
> pg_hosts, either at a separate level or integrating it into the HBA
> context. And later either both should get a new line style and
> deprecate the old one, or maybe these settings should be configured
> completely differently.

Sure; at this point I think we're violently agreeing. If we suspect
the configuration UX needs to be refactored, that's not going to be a
decision made unilaterally in this thread, which is why I said I was
worried about the scope creep.

--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jingtang Zhang 2026-01-27 17:41:52 Optimize CPU usage of dropping buffers during recovery
Previous Message Andres Freund 2026-01-27 17:38:40 Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream