Re: Proposal: Support custom authentication methods using hooks

Greetings,

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 17:02 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> On 2022-03-16 18:50:23 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > First, let's be clear- we aren't actually talking about custom or
> > pluggable authentication here, at least when it comes to PG as a
> > project. For it to actually be pluggable, it needs to be supported on
> > both the client side and the server side, not just the server side.
> >
> > That this keeps getting swept under the carpet makes me feel like this
> > isn't actually an argument about the best way to move the PG project
> > forward but rather has another aim.
>
> This is insulting and unjustified. IMO completely inappropriate for the
> list /
> community. I've also brought this up privately, but I thought it important
> to
> state so publically.

I am concerned.

I don’t intend to insult you or anyone else on this thread. I’m sorry.

This isn’t the first time I asked about this on this thread, yet the
question about why this is only being discussed as backend changes, and
with the only goal seeming to be to have a backend loadable module, without
anything on the client side for something that’s clearly both a server and
client side concern, seems to just be ignored, which make me feel like my
comments and the concerns that I raise aren’t being appreciated.

I had drafted a response to your private email to me but hadn’t wanted to
send it without going over it again after taking time to be sure I had
cooled down and was being level-headed in my response.

I am sorry. I am still concerned.

Thanks,

Stephen

>