| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com" <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers |
| Date: | 2022-08-09 09:17:55 |
| Message-ID: | YvImQ0sl1dV4TBNg@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 12:43:14PM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> but I'm not sure we should do it as a first step (given the fact that this
> is not Port->authn_id that is passed down to the parallel workers in the
> SYSTEM_USER patch).
>
> What do you think about working on both (aka a) v11-002 only
> ClientConnectionInfo and b) SYSTEM_USER) in parallel?
It seems to me that completing ClientConnectionInfo first has the
advantage of not having to tweak twice the interface we are going to
use when passing down the full structure to the workers, so I would
choose for doing it first (with one field for the authn, and a second
field for the auth method so as the the workers can build SYSTEM_USER
by themselves when required).
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2022-08-09 09:48:23 | Re: support for MERGE |
| Previous Message | kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com | 2022-08-09 08:48:53 | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |