| From: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "daniel(at)yesql(dot)se" <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Make jsonapi usable from libpq |
| Date: | 2021-07-07 14:57:53 |
| Message-ID: | ed98d78b0ebba327df4245ddd3d842b13c1a9c1b.camel@vmware.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2021-07-07 at 01:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > It seems to me that this does not address yet the problems with the
> > palloc/pstrdup in jsonapi.c though, which would need to rely on
> > malloc() if we finish to use this code in libpq. I am not sure yet
> > that we have any need to do that yet as we may finish by not using
> > OAUTH as SASL mechanism at the end in core. So perhaps it would be
> > better to just give up on this thread for now?
>
> Yeah, I think there's nothing to do here unless we decide that we
> have to have JSON-parsing ability inside libpq ... which is a
> situation I think we should try hard to avoid.
I'm working on a corrected version of the allocation for the OAuth
proof of concept, so we can see what it might look like there. I will
withdraw this one from the commitfest. Thanks for all the feedback!
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2021-07-07 15:07:14 | Re: [PATCH] Pull general SASL framework out of SCRAM |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2021-07-07 14:25:28 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |