Re: [PATCH] Log details for client certificate failures

From: Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Log details for client certificate failures
Date: 2022-07-20 22:29:55
Message-ID: CAAWbhmj3q=RbGwurus5V3Dh7u5q9msVmQ=61mZptoWxBBuWJug@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 3:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> guc_malloc's behavior varies depending on elevel. It's *not*
> equivalent to palloc.

Right, sorry -- a better way for me to ask the question:

I'm currently hardcoding an elevel of ERROR on the new guc_strdup()s,
because that seems to be a common case for the check hooks. If that's
okay, is there any reason not to use palloc() semantics for
pg_clean_ascii()? (And if it's not okay, why?)

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-07-20 22:42:31 Re: [PATCH] Log details for client certificate failures
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-07-20 22:15:07 Re: [PATCH] Log details for client certificate failures