Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Wolfgang Walther <walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
Date: 2025-04-08 17:15:47
Message-ID: Z_VZw6H_JxxAlXnu@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 10:13:46AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 10:10 AM Wolfgang Walther
> <walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de> wrote:
> > And if that means making libpq modular at run-time, then this should be planned and built with all deps, and other use-cases (like static linking) in mind - and not like it is right now.
>
> I think that'd be neat in concept, but specifically this thread is
> discussing a PG18 open item. For future releases, if we're happy with
> how Curl gets split out, maybe that would be fuel for other
> delay-loaded client dependencies. I'm not sure.

Well, if we think we are going to do that, it seems we would need a
different architecture than the one being proposed for PG 18, which
could lead to a lot of user/developer API churn.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2025-04-08 17:18:31 Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-04-08 17:15:20 Re: Feature freeze