From: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | "magnus(at)hagander(dot)net" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "stark(at)mit(dot)edu" <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging |
Date: | 2021-03-19 18:37:05 |
Message-ID: | d88b52ac2539caa7eb28bde6db589926e187ab76.camel@vmware.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 16:54 +0000, Jacob Champion wrote:
> One additional improvement I would suggest, now that the rotation logic
> is simpler than it was in my original patch, is to rotate the logfile
> regardless of whether the test is checking the logs or not. (Similarly,
> we can manually rotate after the block of test_query() calls.) That way
> it's harder to match the last test's output.
The same effect can be had by moving the log rotation to the top of the
test that needs it, so I've done it that way in v7.
> The tradeoff is that if you need to check for log message order, or for
> multiple instances of overlapping patterns, you still need some sort of
> search-forward functionality.
Turns out it's easy now to have our cake and eat it too; a single if
statement can implement the same search-forward functionality that was
spread across multiple places before. So I've done that too.
Much nicer, thank you for the suggestion!
--Jacob
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v7-0001-test-kerberos-rotate-logs-between-tests.patch | text/x-patch | 2.9 KB |
v7-0002-ssl-store-client-s-DN-in-port-peer_dn.patch | text/x-patch | 3.2 KB |
v7-0003-Log-authenticated-identity-from-all-auth-backends.patch | text/x-patch | 27.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2021-03-19 18:42:08 | Re: non-HOT update not looking at FSM for large tuple update |
Previous Message | John Naylor | 2021-03-19 18:16:22 | Re: non-HOT update not looking at FSM for large tuple update |