Re: libpq: Process buffered SSL read bytes to support records >8kB on async API

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Lars Kanis <lars(at)greiz-reinsdorf(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: libpq: Process buffered SSL read bytes to support records >8kB on async API
Date: 2024-09-11 23:00:25
Message-ID: CAOYmi+nmT+VRMKnyfLmW0FQh3Qynz_Aw4V=4FqK7=oz=b8m_BQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 12:08 PM Lars Kanis <lars(at)greiz-reinsdorf(dot)de> wrote:
> How did you verify the issue on the server side - with YugabyteDB or
> with a modified Postgres server? I'd like to verify the GSSAPI part and
> I'm familiar with the Postgres server only.

Neither, unfortunately -- I have a protocol testbed that I use for
this kind of stuff. I'm happy to share once I get it cleaned up, but
it's unlikely to help you in this case since I haven't implemented
gssenc support. Patching the Postgres server itself seems like a good
way to go.

> > And are there any other sites that
> > need to make the same guarantee before returning?
>
> Which other sites do you mean?

I'm mostly worried that other parts of libpq might assume that a
single call to pqReadData will drain the buffers. If not, great! --
but I haven't had time to check all the call sites.

> > I need to switch away from this for a bit. Would you mind adding this
> > to the next Commitfest as a placeholder?
>
> No problem; registered: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/50/5251/

Thank you!

--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-09-11 23:07:31 Re: query_id, pg_stat_activity, extended query protocol
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2024-09-11 22:54:18 Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER