| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |
| Date: | 2025-02-24 22:02:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+=Pyf9EuR7dRn46ymV-P9fhUft3qH8mqdS-m9ZksmooEg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 12:30 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> If you need to handle the race it you need to combine it with something
> additional, e.g. the so called "self pipe trick". Which e.g. the latch / wait
> event set code does.
Right; I'm just used to that trick being deployed in massively
parallel async event engines rather than linear synchronous code
waiting on a single descriptor. I'm still a bit in disbelief, to be
honest. I'll get over it. Thank you for the note!
> > A bit. The same for Kerberos, IIRC. Is the current configure warning
> > not strong enough to imply that the packager is on shaky ground?
>
> I don't think it's strong enough.
>
> > (I patterned that off of the LDAP crash warning, which seemed much worse to
> > me. :D)
>
> I don't think that's a comparable case, because there were in-production uses
> of PG+ldap that (kind of) worked. Whereas we start on a green field here.
Fair enough. I'll work on a patch to disallow it; best case, no one
ever complains, and we've pruned an entire configuration from the list
of things to worry about.
Thanks!
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2025-02-24 22:07:31 | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-02-24 21:53:48 | Re: Trigger more frequent autovacuums of heavy insert tables |