From: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2022-08-08 10:43:14 |
Message-ID: | d25a412e-9686-d37f-3bd1-63b821f67a51@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 8/7/22 9:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Anyway, I was looking at Bertrand's patch, and I can see that it is
> doing nothing to move away the connection information that we have in
> Port away to a different structure passed down to the parallel
> workers,
Thanks for looking at it!
That's right. The main reason is that in the v2-0003 SYSTEM_USER patch
what is passed down to the parallel workers is not Port->authn_id but a
new "SystemUser" (defined in miscinit.c with CurrentUserId and friends).
> which is what I understand is a cleanup worth on its own
> based on the discussion of this thread. Hence, I still see a good
> argument for the introduction of ClientConnectionInfo that gets passed
> down to the workers.
I agree that it could it be useful too.
> Based on that, I think that we'd better finish
> v11-0002 (only ClientConnectionInfo, no SQL interface)
I agree.
> as a first step
> to build for the next ones, with authn being the first piece of
> information given to the workers. With a separate structure, the
> auth_method can also be a second member in ClientConnectionInfo,
> completing what would be needed to build SYSTEM_USER as the workers
> would have access to it.
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?
Thanks
--
Bertrand Drouvot
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2022-08-08 10:51:20 | Re: Patch proposal: New hooks in the connection path |
Previous Message | vignesh C | 2022-08-08 09:23:28 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |