From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Design Considerations for New Authentication Methods |
Date: | 2006-11-01 04:34:01 |
Message-ID: | 12233.1162355641@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Henry B. Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov> writes:
> I notice that all the
> authentication (pg_fe_sendauth()) is done inside PWConnectPoll(),
> which sounds like something that isn't expected to block on network
> access.
That's right.
> Is this behavior important during startup?
You needn't bother to submit a patch that breaks it ;-). But I don't
really see that it's such a big deal. You just need some state data to
keep track of what to do the next time you receive a message. There's
no assumption anywhere that authentication only involves one message
exchange.
> I haven't looked at the corresponding logic on the server side, but
> I'd assume that it forks before we get to this point so it doesn't
> matter.
Correct, we don't need to worry about multitasking apps there.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory S. Williamson | 2006-11-01 04:36:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Index greater than 8k |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-11-01 04:24:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Index greater than 8k |