| From: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com" <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers |
| Date: | 2022-03-17 22:02:16 |
| Message-ID: | c6ffdec0f5da8e149237509fc64e1c41fc8da668.camel@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2022-03-04 at 10:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> At the end of the day, Port is an interface used for the communication
> between the postmaster with the frontends, so I'd like to say that it
> is correct to not apply this concept to parallel workers because they
> are not designed to contact any frontend-side things.
Coming back to this late, sorry. I'm not quite sure where to move with
this. I'm considering copying pieces of Port over just so we can see
what it looks like in practice?
Personally I think it makes sense for the parallel workers to have the
authn information for the client -- in fact there's a lot of
information that it seems shouldn't be hidden from them -- but there
are other pieces, like the socket handle, that are clearly not useful.
Thanks,
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-17 22:28:11 | Re: ExecTypeSetColNames is fundamentally broken |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-03-17 21:55:07 | Re: [PATCH] Accept IP addresses in server certificate SANs |