| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, 成之焕 <zhcheng(at)ceresdata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Exponential backoff for auth_delay |
| Date: | 2024-03-20 21:21:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+nkZ+BbmsbdXZEaULrv+fqL9gx1uyEBOKKNS8zYCy65dA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 2:15 PM Jacob Champion
<jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I think solutions for case 1 and case 2 are necessarily at odds under
> the current design, if auth_delay relies on slot exhaustion to do its
> work effectively. Weakening that on purpose doesn't make much sense to
> me; if a DBA is uncomfortable with the DoS implications then I'd argue
> they need a different solution. (Which we could theoretically
> implement, but it's not my intention to sign you up for that. :D )
The thread got quiet, and I'm nervous that I squashed it unintentionally. :/
Is there consensus on whether the backoff is useful, even without the
host tracking? (Or, alternatively, is the host tracking helpful in a
way I'm not seeing?) Failing those, is there a way forward that could
make it useful in the future?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-03-20 21:21:53 | Re: documentation structure |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2024-03-20 21:21:08 | Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM` |