Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag
Date: 2023-10-11 03:40:28
Message-ID: ZSYZLPpOubzCh_7o@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 08:26:42AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 09:12:49AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> > On 10/10/23 7:58 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> I was looking at v8 just before you sent this v9, and still got
> >> annoyed by the extra boolean argument added to InitPostgres().
> >
> > Arf, I did not look at it as I had in mind to look at it once
> > this one is in.
>
> No problem. I'm OK to do it.

Applied 0001 for now.

> I am not sure that this is necessary in the code paths of
> BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnectionByOid() and
> BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection() as datallowconn is handled a
> few lines down.

/* flags for InitPostgres() */
#define INIT_PG_LOAD_SESSION_LIBS 0x0001
#define INIT_PG_OVERRIDE_ALLOW_CONNS 0x0002
+#define INIT_PG_BYPASS_ROLE_LOGIN 0x0004

In 0002, I am not sure that this is the best name for this new flag.
There is consistency with the bgworker part, for sure, but shouldn't
we name that OVERRIDE_ROLE_LOGIN instead in miscadmin.h?
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
v11-0002-Allow-background-workers-to-bypass-login-check.patch text/x-diff 9.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tender wang 2023-10-11 03:44:15 Re: Problem, partition pruning for prepared statement with IS NULL clause.
Previous Message Noah Misch 2023-10-11 03:40:26 Re: REL_15_STABLE: pgbench tests randomly failing on CI, Windows only