From: | "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Design Considerations for New Authentication Methods |
Date: | 2006-11-01 06:58:08 |
Message-ID: | 1EDC85D1-8322-4A4D-9A96-E5B0889741ED@jpl.nasa.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 31, 2006, at 8:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "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 ;-).
In other words I can't do the easy thing. OK.
> 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.
In a sense you're right. The API's are designed to support that.
Means I need to some more cases to the huge switch statement inside
PWConnectPoll() though.
>> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
Henry(dot)B(dot)Hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov, or hbhotz(at)oxy(dot)edu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tomas | 2006-11-01 09:50:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Index greater than 8k |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-01 06:38:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Case Preservation disregarding case |