Re: Design Considerations for New Authentication Methods

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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