| From: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "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> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Expose port->authn_id to extensions and triggers |
| Date: | 2022-08-05 10:48:33 |
| Message-ID: | cc8aaffb-1008-eaf6-090e-2461cbe6e1cf@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 8/2/22 11:57 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 6/22/22 06:31, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>> FWIW, I just created a new thread to expose the port->authn_id through
>> the SYSTEM_USER sql reserved word.
> Review for both seems to have dried up a bit. I'm not particularly
> invested in my code, but I do want to see *a* solution go in. So if it
> helps the review momentum for me to withdraw this patch and put my
> effort into SYSTEM_USER, I can do that no problem.
>
> Thoughts from prior reviewers? Is SYSTEM_USER the way to go?
I did not look in detail to this thread, but if the goal is "only" to
expose authn_id (as the subject describes) then it seems to me that
SYSTEM_USER [1] is the way to go.
[1]: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/39/3703/
--
Bertrand Drouvot
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-08-05 12:01:00 | Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2022-08-05 10:44:00 | Re: enable/disable broken for statement triggers on partitioned tables |