From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Make hba available to client code |
Date: | 2015-01-28 21:34:28 |
Message-ID: | 8706.1422480868@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 04:10:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How exactly would exporting those functions help anything client-side?
> Right now, pgbouncer, and aspirational things like it--other
> connection poolers, maybe distributed transaction managers, etc.--can
> fairly easily act almost like a direct connection to PostgreSQL,
> except for some important exceptions. One that's cropped up several
> times is the ability to gate auth by network and user, that being what
> pg_hba.conf allows.
> A conversation with Andrew Dunstan since I posted convinced me that
> the amount of work to separate this cleanly and have it perform
> somewhere in the close range of as well as it does now could be pretty
> significant.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "separate this cleanly",
but if what you mean is "rewrite hba.c so that it works either in
frontend or backend", I don't think I'm going to like the result;
and I'm not convinced that client-side code would find it all that
useful either. The API, error handling, and memory management would
probably all need to be a great deal different on client side. And
serving two masters like that would result in an unreadable mess.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-01-28 21:35:40 | Re: pg_dump with both --serializable-deferrable and -j |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-01-28 21:33:23 | Re: pg_dump with both --serializable-deferrable and -j |